Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators 9781784412340, 9781784412357

Citation preview

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL RESOURCE FOR EDUCATORS

INNOVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING AND LEARNING Series Editor: Patrick Blessinger

INNOVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING AND LEARNING VOLUME 1

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL RESOURCE FOR EDUCATORS EDITED BY PATRICK BLESSINGER International HETL Association, New York, NY, USA

JOHN M. CARFORA Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Created in partnership with the International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association

https://www.hetl.org/

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2014 Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78441-235-7 ISSN: 2055-3641 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

FOREWORD

xiii

PART I: CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: AN INTRODUCTION TO INQUIRYBASED LEARNING FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Patrick Blessinger and John M. Carfora

3

A THEORETICAL MODEL OF COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY-BASED GROUP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Diana J. Wong-MingJi and Gina N. Wong

25

STRATEGIES FOR TRANSFORMING AND EXTENDING INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING: PLACERS A NEW MODEL FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATOR COLLABORATION Cheresa Greene-Clemons and Kisha N. Daniels

49

THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE: CONTRIBUTING TO THE USE OF INQUIRY IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING AND LEARNING Tanya Chichekian and Bruce M. Shore

73

v

vi

CONTENTS

PART II: PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES REFRAMING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND CURRICULUM THE PHENOMENON OF ‘HYBRIDISATION’ IN IBL David Leat, Ulrike Thomas and Anna Reid WAYS OF INQUIRY: THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE OXFORD COLLEGE GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM Jeffery Galle, Brenda Harmon, Alicia Ory DeNicola and Bridgette Gunnels TARGETING STUDENTS’ EPISTEMOLOGIES: INSTRUCTIONAL AND ASSESSMENT CHALLENGES TO INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION Maggie Renken, Carmen Carrion and Ellen Litkowski STRATEGIES FOR EMBEDDING INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING IN BOTANIC GARDENS: EVIDENCE FROM THE INQUIRE PROJECT Elaine Regan, Asimina Vergou, Suzanne Kapelari, Julia Willison, Justin Dillon, Gail Bromley and Costantino Bonomi

101

121

147

175

REPRESENTATION CONSTRUCTION: A DIRECTED INQUIRY PEDAGOGY FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION Peter J. Hubber

201

THE GRADUATING PROJECT: A CROSSDISCIPLINARY INQUIRY-BASED CAPSTONE IN ARTS Andrew Funston and Nicolette Lee

223

CREATING AN ‘EMPORIUM OF WONDER’ AT MANCHESTER MUSEUM Menaka Munro and Hannah-Lee Chalk

243

Contents

ENGAGING STUDENTS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF ENGAGING NON-SCIENCE MAJORS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Amie K. Patchen, Dennis J. DeBay, Michael Barnett and Eric Strauss

vii

271

MIGHTY NEGATRONS AND COLLECTIVE KNITTING: ACADEMIC EDUCATORS’ EXPERIENCES OF COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Alicia Prowse

291

HOW TO SCALE INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING THROUGH PROGRESSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Tracy Miller

317

INQUIRY-BASED SERVICE LEARNING IN A UNIVERSITY-BASED EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM: SERVICE LEADERSHIP AND INTERNSHIP IN A PRINCIPAL FELLOWS PROGRAM R. Martin Reardon

339

CONFIDENT VOICES: HOW PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS BY TEACHERS USING VIDEO PROMOTES INQUIRY-BASED PRACTICE Michelle R. Edgcomb, Sherri J. Morris and Kelly D. McConnaughay TOOLS OF ENGAGEMENT PROJECT (TOEP): ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH STRUCTURED INQUIRY AND A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY Roberta (Robin) Sullivan, Cynthia A. Tysick, Beth Pilawski, Shufang Shi Strause, Cherie van Putten and Nathan Whitley-Grassi

357

377

viii

CONTENTS

LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: USING INQUIRYBASED LEARNING FOR STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMMING Paige E. Sindt and James M. Lucas

393

UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR FACILITATING INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Jaimie Hoffman and Jill Leafstedt

421

SUPPORTING EQUALITY OF EDUCATION THROUGH INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Joseph O’Shea and Latika L. Young

439

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

459

AUTHOR INDEX

479

SUBJECT INDEX

493

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Michael Barnett

Boston College, Boston, MA, USA

Patrick Blessinger

International HETL Association, New York, NY, USA

Costantino Bonomi

MUSE Italy

Gail Bromley

Consultant for Heritage and Biodiversity Education, Woking, UK

John M. Carfora

Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Carmen Carrion

Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education, and Communication Disorders, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Hannah-Lee Chalk

University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK

Tanya Chichekian

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Kisha N. Daniels

North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, USA

Dennis J. DeBay

Manhattanville College, Purchase, NY, USA

Alicia Ory DeNicola

Oxford College of Emory University, Oxford, GA, USA

Justin Dillon

King’s College London, London, England, UK

Trento Science Museum, Trento,

ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Michelle R. Edgcomb

Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA

Andrew Funston

Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Jeffery Galle

Oxford College of Emory University, Oxford, GA, USA

Cheresa GreeneClemons

North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, USA

Bridgette Gunnels

Oxford College of Emory University, Oxford, GA, USA

Brenda Harmon

Oxford College of Emory University, Oxford, GA, USA

Jaimie Hoffman

California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA, USA

Peter J. Hubber

Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Suzanne Kapelari

Austrian Education Competence Centre, Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Jill Leafstedt

California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA, USA

David Leat

Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Language and Communication Sciences, Newcastle University, UK

Nicolette Lee

Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Ellen Litkowski

Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education, and Communication Disorders, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

James M. Lucas

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Kelly D. McConnaughay

Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA

xi

List of Contributors

Tracy Miller

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

Sherri J. Morris

Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA

Menaka Munro

University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK

Joseph O’Shea

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Amie K. Patchen

Boston College, Boston, MA, USA

Beth Pilawski

Mount Washington College, MA, New Hampshire, USA

Alicia Prowse

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, UK

R. Martin Reardon

East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

Elaine Regan

King’s College London, London, England, UK

Anna Reid

Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Language and Communication Sciences, Newcastle University, UK

Maggie Renken

Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education, and Communication Disorders, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Bruce M. Shore

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Paige E. Sindt

CEA Study Abroad, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Shufang Shi Strause

State University of New York at Cortland, Cortland, NY, USA

Eric Strauss

Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

xii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Roberta (Robin) Sullivan

State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Ulrike Thomas

Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Language and Communication Sciences, Newcastle University, UK

Cynthia A. Tysick

State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, USA

Cherie van Putten

State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY, USA

Asimina Vergou

Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, England, UK

Nathan Whitley-Grassi

Empire State College State University of New York, New York, NY, USA

Julia Willison

Royal Botanic Gardens, Richmond, England, UK

Gina N. Wong

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Diana J. Wong-MingJi

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA

Latika L. Young

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

FOREWORD I am pleased to welcome readers to the first volume of Inquiry-Based Learning. This book is timely because, both at home and internationally, inquiry-based learning (IBL) is capturing the attention of educators and researchers in secondary and higher education. Although rich with potential for enhancing the way we teach and our students learn, IBL has presented challenges to some who have attempted it. Gonzalez (2013), chronicling his experiments with IBL, describes, “a difficult journey with the result that … he learned how to design courses that invite undergraduates to become more critical, more complex, and more autonomous thinkers” (p. 33). This first volume comes at the right moment, providing the research, guidance, and resources to make this journey not only less difficult, but also more productive for both new and experienced instructors and educational developers. The rewards that Gonzalez (2013) reports will await at the end of the journey are now multiplied and made accessible by the insights and direction provided by this excellent series. This foreword offers readers a key recommendation for successful implementation of IBL in courses and programs, citing implementation science to confirm why this approach works. I have confidence in this implementation process because of my 35 years of experience as facilitator and researcher of structured, inquiry-based, academic communities of practice (CoPs). The outcomes of this process have provided colleagues, students, and institutions with effective practices and programs for teaching, learning, research, and organizational development (Cox & Richlin, 2004). My recommendation is that the readers of these chapters employ structured, academic CoPs when implementing the opportunities surrounding IBL described here. In the United States, we call these faculty learning communities (FLCs). Membership is voluntary, multidisciplinary, of size 8 10 members, and open to those in all professions in higher education. FLCs are inquiry based, yearlong, and have the goals of building community, developing evidence-based solutions, and disseminating project outcomes, often as the scholarship of teaching and learning (Cox, 2004). FLC outcomes include increased student learning in areas high on Bloom’s xiii

xiv

FOREWORD

taxonomy and can include design and assessment of new curricula or revised programs developed by the FLC as a group in concert (Beach & Cox, 2009). For over 35 years in the United States, FLCs have engaged hundreds of topics, including some described in this book, namely, study abroad, equality in higher education, Web 2.0 tools, service learning, and nonscience majors and scientific inquiry. Cohort-based FLCs, for example, early-career academics, build institutional capacity by developing leaders and scholars (Cox, 2006, 2013). Over the long term, FLCs enable an institution to become a learning organization (Cox, 2001, 2006; Senge, 1990). For example, the top-25 largest-enrolled courses at my university were transformed from lecture-based to inquiry-guided learning. This involved hundreds of course sections, instructors, and thousands of students (Taylor, Bakker, Nadler, Shore, & Dietz-Uhler, 2012). Importantly, instructors and educational developers accomplished this transformation by working in FLCs/CoPs (Stonewater, Taylor, Bakker, Nadler, & Shore, in press). Implementation science confirms why educational developers are successful in using FLCs to implement challenging, evidenced-based opportunities such as IBL. Implementation is the art and science of incorporating innovations, interventions, and evidence-based programs into typical human service settings to benefit the clients of practitioners, for example, “bench to bedside” in the medical professions. The goal of implementation is “X is what we do” and the establishment of X as the norm in a system and a culture, day in and day out, even when no one is watching. The purveyor of the implementation is the organization, staff, and process that are engaged to achieve the implementation. Educational developers attempt to find a purveyor to ensure that their practitioners instructors, staff, and administrators employ IBL with fidelity and sustainability for their clients students, programs, and institutions. Lacking good information about implementation best practices, policy makers have invested heavily in the science of interventions, not in the science of implementation. The national implementation research network reports that the U.S. federal government invests 99% in intervention research and 1% in implementation of that research, leaving implementation to chance (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Purveyor approaches to implementation that have not worked include invitations (Please do X), demands (You must do X), incentives rather than penalties, additional evidence that the evidenced-based program works, and mass media approaches. What does work for successful purveyors is

xv

Foreword

diffusion by people talking to people who mentor and show why and how. People follow the lead of others they know and trust (Gawande, 2013). The authors of Inquiry-Based Learning have provided research results, resources, and guidance showing that IBL is a doable, evidence-based program that enhances organizational development and student learning. The FLC model as purveyor is successful because it employs the effective approaches of implementation: FLC members talk to and mentor each other as practitioners, instructors, and scholars. They collaborate with their FLC colleagues members they know and trust to design, implement, assess, and disseminate IBL applications. In conclusion, I recommend that readers employ the wisdom of this first volume and the proven success of the FLC model to implement IBL in courses, programs, and institutions. I extend best wishes for your IBL endeavors. Milton D. Cox

REFERENCES Beach, A. L., & Cox, M. D. (2009). The impact of faculty learning communities on teaching and learning. Learning Communities Journal, 1(1), 7 27. Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19, 69 93. Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M. D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities (pp. 5 23). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cox, M. D. (2006). Phases in the development of a change model: Communities of practice as change agents in higher education. In A. Bromage, L. Hunt, & C. B. Tomkinson (Eds.), The realities of educational change: Interventions to promote learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 91 100). Oxford: Routledge. Cox, M. D. (2013). The impact of communities of practice in support of early-career academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 18 39. Cox, M. D., & Richlin, L. (2004). Building faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Gawande, A. (2013). Slow ideas: Some innovations spread fast. How do we speed the ones that don’t? Annals of medicine. The New Yorker, July 29. Gonzalez, J. J. (2013). My journey with inquiry-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(2), 33 50.

xvi

FOREWORD

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday. Stonewater, J. K., Taylor, B., Bakker, A., Nadler, M., & Shore, C. (in press). Engaging communities of practice to increase student engagement in large-enrollment courses. Learning Communities Journal, 6. Taylor, B. K., Bakker, A., Nadler, M. K., Shore, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Integrating inquiry-guided learning across the curriculum: The top project at Miami University. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 129, 61 70.

PART I CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: AN INTRODUCTION TO INQUIRYBASED LEARNING FOR FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Patrick Blessinger and John M. Carfora ABSTRACT This chapter provides an introduction to how the inquiry-based learning (IBL) approach is being used by colleges and universities around the world to improve faculty and institutional development and to strengthen the interconnections between teaching, learning, and research. This chapter provides a synthesis and analysis of all the chapters in the volume, which present a range of perspectives, case studies, and empirical research on how IBL is being used across a range of courses across a range of institutions to enhance faculty and institutional development. This chapter argues that the IBL approach has great potential to enhance and transform teaching and learning. Given the growing demands placed on

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 3 24 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001003

3

4

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

education to meet a diverse range of complex political, economic, and social problems and personal needs, this chapter argues that education should be a place where lifelong and lifewide learning is cultivated and where self-directed learning is nurtured. To that end, this chapter argues that IBL helps cultivate a learning environment that is more meaningful, responsive, integrated, and purposeful.

INTRODUCTION In recent years, more and more colleges and universities have started to adopt inquiry-based learning (IBL) as a means to improve the educational experience for instructors and students. As evidenced by the research presented in this volume, universities around the world have begun embracing IBL as a way to strengthen interconnections between teaching, learning, and research. The potential of inquiry as a means to strengthen the teaching, learning, and research nexus lies in cultivating a mindset of inquiry that permeates every facet of educational life (Carfora, 2011; Lee, 2013). The main purpose of any human-based organism (e.g., individual, organizational, community) is to organize and make meaning from their experiences and the questions they seek to investigate and understand (Daloz Parks, 2000; Doherty, Riordan, & Roth, 2003). IBL with its focus on inquiry, intentionality, and meaning-making as a means to learn is naturally suited for this purpose. Educational institutions, perhaps more than any other type of institution, can therefore serve as incubators to cultivate and enhance this inquiryoriented learning process and provide a relatively safe and nurturing environment to question, to explore, to take reasonable risks, and to continually develop learners into more self-directed and self-sustaining individuals who become an integral part of a larger nexus of groups, communities, and other social structures. IBL can be used to not only foster higher order thinking and deep cognitive capabilities but also to develop transferable life skills, value clarification, and meaning-making in all its complexity. Mezirow (1991) states that, “Making meaning is central to what learning is all about” (p. 11). According to Mezirow (1991), people are more accepting of knowledge consistent with their existing knowledge base derived from their own experiences. Kovbasyuk and Blessinger (2013) further elaborated on this concept through their investigation of open meaning-making educational

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

5

processes. In this light, a key goal for educators is to determine how to best use IBL to not only facilitate more effective learning but also to better enable students to more holistically investigate questions of meaning to them that continually challenge learners to investigate multiple perspectives and ideas. In doing this, educators can help create learning spaces in which continual questioning is encouraged and meaning-making is at the heart of learning. In response to some of the perceived shortcomings of IBL (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007) present a large body of evidence illustrating how IBL can be an effective learning approach if designed and implemented properly relative to the particular teaching and learning context. The authors conclude that “… there is growing evidence from large-scale experimental and quasi-experimental studies demonstrating that inquiry-based instruction results in significant learning gains in comparison to traditional instruction and that disadvantaged students benefit most from inquiry-based instructional approaches” (p. 104). IBL recognizes that education is about learning both the knowledge and the epistemic practices of the domain(s) being studied in order to prepare students to begin thinking like a practitioner in the domain (e.g., to think like an economist, to think like a physicist, to think like a historian), which further helps prepare students in a more authentic way to be self-directed, lifelong learners (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). The IBL approach is well suited to accomplish these learning goals. In light of this large and growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of inquiry learning, the chapters in this volume are oriented around how the IBL approach is being utilized across a range of educational sceneries and institutional types to enhance and transform both faculty and institutional development. The examples provided in this volume (e.g., case studies, empirical research studies) provide an in-depth and broad overview of how IBL can be used to design flexible and agile learning communities at both the institutional (e.g., programs) and faculty (e.g., courses, projects) levels. The chapters in this volume cover the core theories, concepts, and principles related to IBL as well successful practices and strategies for IBL implementations that are helping to enhance and transform teaching and learning at a variety of educational institutions around the world. The chapters in this volume provide concrete examples of how IBL has been implemented around established IBL frameworks as well as innovative implementations of those frameworks to yield teaching and learning environment that increase the potential for enhanced professional development

6

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

(PD) among faculty and for transforming higher education institutions into more effective global learning communities. The chapters in this volume illustrate the usefulness of IBL regardless of institutional mission or institutional type because IBL overlaps and integrates with several important learning approaches and theories that have been shown to be effective in cultivating higher order thinking and academic motivation among students (e.g., active learning, problem-based learning, meaningful learning). The chapters in this volume provide a wide- and farreaching overview of recent developments in IBL theories and pedagogical practices, including new and established literature on IBL (Barrow, 2006; Bell, Urhahne, Schanze, & Ploetzner, 2010; Bruner, 1961, 1990; Dewey, 1938/1997; Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Eslinger, White, Frederiksen, & Brobst, 2008; Galileo Educational Network, 2013; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Gredler, 2009; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Hutchings, 2007; Lee, Greene, Odom, Schechter, & Slatta, 2004; Levy, Thomas, Kathryn Dargo, & Rex, 2013; Lipman, 1991; Spoken-Smith, 2007; Vygotsky, 1962). As noted by Sindt and Lucas (2014), several trends (e.g., changing student demographics, shifting workforce needs, globalization) have converged in recent history and are driving the need for educational reform and the development of innovative teaching and learning strategies more conducive to the emerging realities of the 21st century. These forces are requiring institutions to redefine learning in terms of the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed for today’s global workplace (Augustine, 2013; Deardorff, 2004). Additionally, also noted by Sindt and Lucas (2014), increased calls for accountability from the public, accreditation bodies, and government agencies around the world have put greater responsibility upon institutions to show concrete evidence of student learning and career readiness (Association of American Colleges, Universities, and National Leadership Council (US), 2007). In response to these growing pressures, more institutions are seeking more effective ways to engage and prepare students. To this end, Kuh (2008) identified several high-impact learning models that increase student engagement (e.g., service learning, civic engagement, undergraduate research, education abroad). With respect to faculty and institutional development, the IBL theories, models, and concepts covered in this volume illustrate how IBL can be used to build and support better relationships between instructors and students, and between the institutions and the communities they serve. IBL can be used at any grade and in any discipline. Regardless of the discipline and the institutional type, the idea behind IBL is to create better, more impactful teaching and learning environments by making teaching and

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

7

learning more authentic, more meaningful, and more purposeful. To that end, IBL creates new possibilities for instructors, students, and institutions (e.g., leadership, administration, staff). This is especially important since higher education in the 21st century is a more complex enterprise than in previous decades due to increased demands placed upon it by society, government leaders, policy makers, employers, and other group(s) that have an interest in the outcomes shaped by teaching, learning, and education. As such, formal education in general and higher education in particular can be viewed as serving multiple purposes (e.g., political, economic, social, personal) for multiple constituencies. The examples provided in this volume therefore serve to illustrate how IBL is being used in a multiplicity of novel ways for a variety of purposes. The chapters in this volume also illustrate the dramatic impact advances in new learning research and theories are having upon educators’ notions of what it means to teach and learn in a postindustrial, highly interconnected globalized world. The modern era is characterized by dramatic increases in the production of new knowledge and conversely, the dramatic decrease in the shelf-life of new knowledge across all disciplines, along with the continual breaking down of time and space barriers brought about by an abundance of new technologies and advances in transportation and communication networks, and the adoption of democratic principles by more countries (Wankel & Blessinger, 2013). Thus, IBL with it inherent qualities of authenticity, real-world problem-solving, and focus on selfresponsibility and meaning-making offers a promising approach to enhance and transform the quality of the teaching and learning experience by adopting a more learner-directed and learning-centered teaching approach that puts the main locus of control for learning with the learner and the main locus of control for creating the right conditions most conducive for that learning with the instructor and the institution.

ADOPTION PRINCIPLES Two key principles emerge from the findings of the chapters in this volume that help frame how IBL is being used within faculty and institutional development: 1. IBL enhances the PD of faculty by expanding the role of the instructor from an isolated subject matter specialist to a collaborative instructional leader who transitions from simple disseminator of course information

8

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

to a more sophisticated instructional leader and learning architect. This expanded professional role increases the professional nature of teaching and thus also increases the responsibility of the instructor to address the learning needs of the whole student (e.g., cognitive, affective, social). Therefore, the instructor is crucial to the proper implementation of IBL because she/he serves as the chief learning architect for the course and chief learning facilitator who guides students through the learning process. Ongoing profession development (PD) through faculty learning communities and other forms of PD is therefore very important. 2. IBL practices enhance institutional development by creating a culture of learning-centered teaching (i.e., teaching as a means to produce effective learning) and student-centered learning by creating more participatory and more meaningful educational environments through a variety of authentic learning activities. Institutional development is enhanced by properly aligning inquiry-based teaching, learning, research, and service with the institution’s mission, vision, and core values where the institution is viewed as a learning community that is part of both local and global learning communities. These principles are reflective of the fact that they are adaptive to the context of the learning goals of the course, the teaching-learning environment, and the mission, vision, and core values of the institution. Although learners assume increasing responsibility for their own learning, the instructor plays an essential and critical role in helping to create the necessary conditions within which effective teaching and learning take place. All else being equal, implementing IBL has the potential to both enhance and transform the teaching and learning environment and make it more engaging, dynamic, and meaningful. Since learners are learning to be more self-directed, academic motivation is likely to be increased as well. Moving from deeply embedded traditional teaching-learning roles (e.g., the instructor as sole knowledge expert, the lecture as the only or primary means to teach, the textbook as the main repository of information, and the student as passive recipient of information dispensed solely or primarily through lectures and textbooks) to IBL roles can be a major transition because along with taking on new roles comes the development of a new mindset about the purpose and nature of teaching and learning in the modern era. While the student makes the transition from a passive to an active participant in the learning process, the instructor must also make the transition from content specialist to instructional leader, learning architect, and

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

9

learning mentor and facilitator. In the IBL teaching-learning approach, both roles are greatly expanded, better defined, and more focused on achieving more explicit, higher order learning outcomes. Also important is the quality and ongoing interaction and relationship between the instructor and learner, as well as between learners. Changes include institutional development to create an organization as a learning community. IBL requires interaction, participation, and collaboration at all levels. It requires taking on new roles and adopting new beliefs and attitudes about the nature of teaching and learning in the modern era. It requires careful planning and a great deal of patience and commitment to move past the growing pains of implementing a new paradigm and the organizational cultural resistance that may try to impede this change. However, as the chapters in this volume indicate, over the long-term, the benefits of IBL are worth the effort.

IMPLEMENTATION BENEFITS A growing body of research suggests that IBL can be an effective teaching and learning strategy if implemented properly with regard to context and the linking of teaching, learning, research, and assessment (Cuneo et al., 2001; Cuneo, Harnish, Roy, & Vajoczki, 2012; Hickey, Wolfe, & Kindfield, 2000; Justice et al., 2007; Lynch, Kuipers, Pyke, & Szesze, 2005; Vajoczki, Watt, & Vine, 2011). If utilized appropriately and in a purposeful manner, IBL can produce positive learning effects in the classroom. Since IBL is oriented around authentic and meaningful learning, it is well suited to align better with a student’s own value system, learning needs, and life and career aspirations. IBL helps to expand the boundaries of teaching and learning and allows students to more actively participate in the learning process by taking on increasing degrees of ownership of the learning process. For example, Wong-MingJi and Wong (2014) propose a new theoretical model of collaborative inquiry-based group development process based on three elements: generative social capital, relational learning, and pedagogical paradigm shifts. The authors contend that these elements support inquiry-based practices where teachers are transformed from content specialists to instructional leaders in the context of their professional community. Sustainable PD of instructors as lifelong learners and where PD is oriented around the adoption, growth, and experience of inquiry in educational practices and change.

10

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

In a second example, Greene-Clemons and Daniels (2014) present a model for transforming and engaging instruction where students are at the center of the learning. The model is not only a guide for professional collaboration but also a means to expand inquiry-based teaching strategies. The authors show how the model is applied to service-learning projects and how it supports transformational learning through better opportunities for the inclusion of inquiry-based activities into course design. The authors show how the professional collaboration created opportunities for students to develop both epistemic knowledge and epistemic skills, as well as increased exposure to technology and community engagement. In a third example, Patchen, DeBay, Barnett, and Strauss (2014) show how they redesigned a large nonscience major course using IBL. The authors explain how, in the urban planning lab, students were tasked with making complex connections between the economic, social, and ecological aspects of city design to illustrate how different urban designs can yield different social, economic, and ecological impacts. The urban planning lab provided students with the necessary structure to allow them to engage in comparative analyses across different urban plans, which yielded more sophisticated discussions of the underlying principles and practices of the discipline. In a fourth example, O’Shea and Young (2014) argued that IBL can be an effective strategy to promote educational growth across a variety of student populations. The chapter positions inquiry-based teaching and learning as a way to support equality within education since IBL supports the academic and personal development of each student. The authors illustrate how a university can use scaffolding to integrate IBL throughout the curricular landscape of an institution to facilitate students’ growth toward open inquiry. The authors provide guidance for how IBL can form the basis to an institutional approach that supports the growth of every student at every level. The goal of IBL is to improve learning by developing more self-sufficient learners who are motivated to develop their academic and personal potential. IBL is a type of active learning strategy because it engages the student in their own knowledge production and epistemic practices of the discipline by putting the main locus of control for learning with the student so that she/he can develop the skills to continue to learn long after leaving the classroom. Thus, in addition to many cognitive benefits, IBL is a more holistic learning strategy for developing important psychological, social, and behavioral qualities and skills necessary for higher order thinking and lifelong learning.

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

11

THEORETICAL FRAMING In a broad sense, IBL can be viewed as a set of learning and assessment strategies and standards where student learning is grounded in inquiry that is driven by questions and problems relevant to the course and learning objectives. (Levy, Lameras, McKinney, & Ford, 2011). IBL is a form of active learning that engages students in a more meaningful, purposeful, and self-regulated way to learn. IBL is applicable and relevant across all disciplines and levels within education and in both formal and informal learning situations (Levy, Little, McKinney, Nibbs, & Wood, 2010). The broad based, ubiquitous applicability of IBL allows its benefits to be used in virtually every aspect of teaching and learning and also provides a common theoretical framework upon which to design more effective learning environments without the need to create a rigid system of standardization across educational disciplines and levels. The key to effective design is in the contextualization of IBL to the specific level, discipline, course, learning objectives, etc. At the heart of IBL is an inquiry teaching and learning process where all learning activities and assessments are purposefully designed to cultivate knowledge building and higher order thinking through exploration of authentic and meaningful questions and problems. The Galileo Educational Network (2013) defines IBL as the investigation of questions, problems, or issues within an authentic, real-world scenario. It is the type of question or problem that someone working in the discipline(s) would investigate in order to create knowledge. Hudspith and Jenkins (2001) define inquiry as “a self-directed, question-driven search for understanding” (p. 9). Contemporary IBL approaches understand the need to explicitly link inquiry-based teaching practices and content with IBL activities and course learning outcomes with inquiry-based assessment. As noted by Chichekian and Shore (2014), “Inquiry begins with the development and implementation of a plan to satisfy curiosity.” Thus, IBL has its roots in a constructivistbased educational philosophy a rich and extensive epistemology whereby learners construct knowledge through interaction with ideas, experiences, and empirical data and is oriented around three main components: (1) Exploration and investigation (e.g., problem-based learning, collaborative learning, self-directed learning, meaningful learning), (2) Authentic inquiries using contextualized and situated learning (e.g., field learning, service learning, case-based learning), and (3) Research-based approach (e.g., research-based learning, project-based learning, scaffolded learning).

12

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

As such, IBL naturally supports different modes of inquiry where the questions to be answered or the problems to be solved are grounded in the relevant epistemological basis (i.e., the type and level of course and discipline, and mode of inquiry). IBL encourages more self-regulated learners because the primary responsibility is on the learners to determine the issues and research questions and the resources they need to address the questions. Hence, IBL is not a specific teaching method and it is not prescriptive; rather, it is a broad approach or paradigm (i.e., a set of interconnected theories, concepts, and practices) to teaching and learning where the ultimate outcome is to produce more effective learning environments and greater academic achievement in students by cultivating more selfempowered teachers and learners. IBL is oriented around process, content, and outcome and is considered a way of learning that focuses on investigating authentic (real-world) questions and problems that are meaningful to learners (Drayton & Falk, 2001). IBL holds that learning is most effective, therefore, when the learning environment fosters inquiry and enables students to actively engage in knowledge construction in a socially participatory way (e.g., through interaction and collaboration with peers, instructors, and through a variety of relevant resources) (Biggs, 1996; Dewey, 1938/1997; Levy et al., 2011). IBL encourages more self-regulated learners because the primary responsibility is on the learner (with guidance from the instructors and peers) to identify the issue(s) of interest, formulate research questions, and determine, in collaboration with their faculty guide, the resources, and methodological rigor needed to address these questions. In this way, learning occurs more effectively across all learning domains (affective, cognitive, and social) because different types of knowledge are acquired through active experience and interaction with complex, tangible questions and problems, and their analysis. Student learning is thus stimulated by a process of inquiry through which the student actively pursues knowledge, inquiry, research, and enhanced understanding. IBL’s conceptual and theoretical roots can be traced back to the works of, among others, Bruner (1961), Dewey (1910, 1916, 1933, 1938a, 1938b), Freire (1984), Herron (1971), Papert and Harel (1991), Piaget (1970, 1971, 1977, 1985), Schwab (1960, 1966), Vygotsky (1962, 1978). IBL facilitates the creation of new knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors through the development of independent and collaborative investigation of questions and problem scenarios using modes of inquiry appropriate to the discipline and subject matter. This is important because each discipline has evolved within a particular epistemological framework. Because IBL is nonprescriptive and respects the epistemological basis of

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

13

each discipline, the instructor enjoys a large degree of flexibility in how to design the course within the established epistemological framework of the discipline and the developmental level of the students while still enjoying the freedom of inquiry to integrate innovative elements into the course to allow the students to be creative in their learning (e.g., operate at the top end of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives). IBL need not necessarily be based primarily on one type of reasoning over the other. Both inductive reasoning (i.e., specific observations used to infer a general idea or principle specific to the general) and deductive reasoning (i.e., a general idea or principle is used to deduce a specific proof general to the specific), can work well with IBL. Which type of reasoning is preferred will depend largely on the type and level of the course and the learning outcomes sought. This is where the pedagogical judgment of the instructor as the chief learning architect is important. Lee (2013) emphasizes the need to balance the challenge and rigor of the course with appropriate support and structure. If the challenge and rigor of the course is well above the learning and grade level of the students, then frustration and anxiety will likely set in due to cognitive overload. But if the challenge and rigor of the course is well below the learning and grade level of the students, then boredom and disinterest will likely set in. Similarly, if appropriate (i.e., appropriate to the complexity and difficulty of the inquiry) instructional support and structure is not present, students may proceed in the wrong direction or needlessly engage in activities or consume resources that do not produce effective learning. Thus, instructional design is very important to achieving learning outcomes and to match the level of guidance and supervision required to meet the needs of the particular course and student needs. Lee (2011) provides several examples of inquiry support: modeling, heuristics, guiding questions, rubrics, lectures, and assigned readings. IBL may be unsettling to some students when they are first exposed to it but with the proper guidance and support and purposeful course design, they can begin to take on this learning challenge with greater confidence.

CHAPTER OVERVIEWS In “A Theoretical Model of Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process,” by Diana J. Wong-MingJi and Gina N. Wong, the authors examine how collaborative inquiry-based group development processes can transform educators’ professional identity and pedagogical practices. The authors present data from a longitudinal case study of

14

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

inquiry-based pedagogies in a community of learners (K-12 teachers, resource staff, administrators, higher education, and union organizations). The authors’ present a model on the generative dynamics between social capital and relational learning, which supports pedagogical paradigm shifts in the group’s collaboration. The authors’ discuss implications of the study to provide direction for research regarding IBL in higher educational institutions for sustainable PD of teachers as life-long learners. In “Strategies for Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning: Placers A New Model for Transformative Engagement and Educator Collaboration,” by Cheresa Greene-Clemons and Kisha N. Daniels, the authors present a framework useful for developing collaborative interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary teaching and inquiry-based engagement between social science and professional practice faculty. As a result of this collaboration, structured reflection strategies were developed that allowed students to practice critical thinking and problem-solving skills, utilize 21st century technology, and increase content knowledge. The authors present practical IBL examples that are supported by authentic interdisciplinary experiences, which provides a voice to the role and place of IBL through collaboration. The authors’ present a collaborative model that can be used by all educators interested in collaborative instruction. In “The International Baccalaureate: Contributing to the Use of Inquiry in Higher Education Teaching and Learning,” by Tanya Chichekian and Bruce M. Shore, the authors investigate how inquiry learning is used in an International Baccalaureate (IB) program, which is widely accepted by universities for matriculation. The authors discuss how the program’s inquiry philosophy, interdisciplinary emphasis, and specific elements of the program comprise qualities that inform higher education. The authors’ note that there has been disproportionate attention given to the planning part of inquiry versus enactment or reflection, which leaves room for other research input about enacting inquiry in university instruction. The authors’ emphasize the importance of providing detailed, supportive, stepby-step introductions to inquiry, and attending to the social and emotional correlates of learning. In “Reframing Relationships between Teachers, Students, and Curriculum The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL,” by David Leat, Ulrike Thomas, and Anna Reid, the authors discuss the current pressures in England for schools to meet government assessment targets. These “high stakes” assessments create uncertainty among principals and teachers that they can lose their jobs if they do not meet the targets. In such a climate many teachers feel that innovative learning approaches, such as

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

15

inquiry-based learning, is taking a considerable risk. As a result, the authors discuss how teachers in England often enact a hybridized form of inquiry in order to manage the risk. The authors use Basil Bernstein’s concept of “framing” to analyze the effect of inquiry-based learning on the relationship between the curriculum, teachers, and students in these schools. Inquiry, acts as a disruption to the normal “convergent” pedagogy with many positive outcomes for teachers and students. Although the agency, or capacity for action, of teachers is increased through exploring inquiry approaches, the authors conclude that for inquiry to develop further there is a need for a stronger local “ecology” to support teachers and schools in their efforts to innovate. In “Ways of Inquiry: The Distinctiveness of the Oxford College General Education Program,” by Jeffery Galle, Brenda Harmon, Alicia Ory DeNicola, and Bridgette Gunnels, the authors present narratives of four faculty who designed IBL courses for students in the first two years of undergraduate study at Oxford College of Emory University. While inquiry has enjoyed clear successes in the courses of every liberal arts discipline at the college, one repeated area of struggle was “assessment” in these nontraditional courses. To address this question, a small group of faculty chosen for their representation of major academic areas of natural sciences (organic chemistry), social sciences (economic anthropology), literature (literary criticism), and language (intermediate Spanish) convened during the 2013 2014 academic year to discuss and develop examples of assessment techniques in the inquiry classroom. This chapter offers their experiences in development and assessment of IBL courses. In “Targeting Students’ Epistemologies: Instructional and Assessment Challenges to Inquiry-Based Science Education,” by Maggie Renken, Carmen Carrion, and Ellen Litkowski, the authors discuss how improving learners’ epistemologies should be examined when considering inquiry effectiveness when the basis for students’ participation in IBSE is to emulate the scientific process in classroom learning and, by extension, to alter their scientific epistemologies. The authors discuss challenges associated with the construction and assessment of IBSE. The authors integrate preliminary research findings from a week-long, researcher-taught ecology inquiry unit with urban adolescents, reporting on posttest assessments of students’ thoughts on sources of knowledge, their ecology content knowledge, and their understanding of the nature of science. This chapter explores explanations of unexpected findings and recommendations for the future assessment and practice of inquiry couched in challenges associated with current challenges to instructing and assessing learner epistemology.

16

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

In “Strategies for Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning in Botanic Gardens: Evidence from the Inquire Project,” by Elaine Regan, Asimina Vergou, Suzanne Kapelari, Julia Willison, Justin Dillon, Gail Bromley, and Costantino Bonomi, the authors discuss how the INQUIRE project, a three-year project focusing on IBSE, which involved 17 partners in 11 European countries that aimed to reinvigorate IBSE in the formal and Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) educational contexts in Europe offers a significant contribution to education provision across Europe. Over 500 teachers and educators participated in the INQUIRE courses during the lifetime of the project, in 14 different European countries. The authors present a case study of successful practices for embedding inquiry-based teaching and learning in botanic gardens. The findings show that the courses had a positive impact on the participants who learned both theoretical and practical aspects of implementing IBSE in school and LOtC contexts. The project resulted in significant PD outcomes and key factors for success are presented. In “Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy for Science Education,” by Peter J. Hubber, the author describes a successful research-developed representation construction approach to teaching and learning that links student learning and engagement with the epistemic practices of science. This approach involves challenging students to generate and negotiate the representations (text, graphs, models, diagrams) that constitute the discursive practices of science, rather than focusing on the text-based, definitional versions of concepts. The key principles of the representation construction approach, considered a form of directed inquiry, are outlined with illustrations from video ethnographic studies of whole topics in forces and astronomy within several middle years’ science classrooms. This chapter also outlines the manner in which the representation construction approach has been translated into wider scale implementation through a large-scale PD workshop program and preservice secondary teacher curriculum courses. In “The Graduating Project: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry-Based Capstone in Arts,” by Andrew Funston and Nicolette Lee, the authors investigate how final-year capstone units, often designed as inquiry-based projects, can engage students in authentic work that interests them personally, while building on their disciplinary knowledge and graduate capabilities. However, for some academics dealing with less academically accomplished students, the focus on student-directed activity that is inherent in IBL can be a cause of concern. The cross-disciplinary inquiry-based capstone in Arts at an Australian university discussed in this chapter

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

17

should allay some of those concerns. The success of this capstone stems from student teams selecting and designing their own projects, often drawing on knowledge(s) and concerns relevant to their own diverse communities. The flexible framework and guided inquiry approach sees tutors step back becoming facilitators rather than experts and this in turn builds students’ confidence in their capacity to plan and execute their projects. In “Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum,” by Menaka Munro and Hannah-Lee Chalk, the authors investigates how learning and research are central to Manchester Museum’s work with its record of educational work, from the “Children’s Museum Club” to the founding of a dedicated education department in 1981. The growth of the learning team led to the creation of a set of learning principles to underpin its work. These principles that learning should be object-centered, dialogic, imaginative, personalized, multisensory, collaborative, and exploratory are all based on IBL and aim to foster a research-based disposition in learners. Manchester Museum is now looking to transform the third floor of its building into a space themed entirely around “research.” This redevelopment will see the creation of a new visitor research space “The Study.” This unique development will extend the successful IBL approach used with schools and colleges, into a public research space for all visitors, with collections at its heart. In “Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry: Successes and Challenges of Engaging Non-Science Majors in Scientific Inquiry,” by Amie K. Patchen, Dennis J. DeBay, Michael Barnett, and Eric Strauss, the authors provide a review of studies and reports that highlight the need for changes in undergraduate science education, including a shift away from traditionally structured lab courses toward more authentic scientific inquiry experiences in undergraduate science laboratories. The authors examine the challenges and successes of engaging nonscience majors in a large introductory university-level science course in conducting scientific inquiry. The authors describe the course structure and the nature of the laboratory experiences and present two lab experiences where students engaged in direct inquiry and then were asked to engage in a more open-ended inquiry experience. The authors suggest that students need significant scaffolding to make the transition from a more directed inquiry to a more open-ended inquiry. In “Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting: Academic Educators’ Experiences of Collaborative Inquiry-Based Learning,” by Alicia Prowse, the author explores the ways in which academic educators’ experience of collaborative inquiry-based learning can illuminate student behaviors, particularly in relation to assessment and the affective domain. The facilitator,

18

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

in the setting of university academic staff development, uses a reflective story-telling style to detail the learning of an annual cohort of academic staff. Six separate academic staff cohorts enrolled on a unit, as part of a Master of Arts in Academic Practice, to undertake this experiential, humanist way of learning, working with all the principles of collaborative inquiry. The chapter explores the ways in which the participants’ selfreported affective responses altered over the course of the unit and how this may affect their own practice in designing teaching and learning experiences for students in higher education. In “How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning through Progressive Faculty Development,” by Tracy Miller, the author describes the parallel nature of inquiry-based delivery and a student-centered approach. The author borrows from biology and uses a DNA double helix as a metaphor to demonstrate progression and connection with faculty instruction and student directedness. The author discusses the risks involved with transitioning to inquiry-based teaching and learning because even if the faculty member is prepared to employ inquiry-based methods, the students may not be prepared to benefit fully from the effort. In order to be scalable, faculty development for inquiry-based education cannot be one size fits all. The author provides examples on how new inquiry-based faculty can begin with small activity sequences and work their way up to splicing together complex chains. To invoke a sustainable shift in teaching and learning, higher education institutions can create a strategic initiative to promote faculty excellence in inquiry-based teaching and learning. This chapter provides a sample logic model and strategic framework to implement a new initiative. The author ends with some thoughts on collaborating with other institutions and institutional partners for a greater chance of a positive return on investment. In “Inquiry-Based Service Learning in a University-Based Educational Leadership Program: Service Leadership and Internship in a Principal Fellows Program” by R. Martin Reardon, the author discusses how, in response to changes in licensure regulations and criticisms, university-based programs have historically graduated ineffective educational leaders who fail to implement mandated reforms. As a result, programs have changed to include (a) a focus on the context in which graduates of the program will most likely lead (the local school communities) and (b) the immersion of program participants in a process of inquiry into problems of practice. Internships provide the setting for both these inclusions. Referencing the concept of “elbow learning,” the author discusses how the inquiry-based and service learning ideals integrate in Service Leadership Projects (SLPs) conducted during the internship requirement of a university-based educational leadership.

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

19

In “Confident Voices: How Professional Development for Teachers by Teachers Using Video Promotes Inquiry-Based Practice,” by Michelle R. Edgcomb, Sherri J. Morris and Kelly D. McConnaughay, the authors examined educators’ self-perception as practitioners of inquiry-based math and science instruction, their motivation to produce videos to share that practice, and the impact of video production on their use of inquiry and role in the PD community. Participant responses indicated a high level of selfreflection and a keen understanding of the nature of inquiry-based math and science teaching. Participants were motivated to share their practice largely by their desire to help other educators develop as inquiry practitioners. Articulating how and why they used inquiry-based techniques for the videos deepened their already reflective teaching. The positive aspects of participation also increased their confidence in their ability to engage in PD as teacher-leaders. Overall this study indicated that videos created for the purposes of PD had a transforming effect on their professional practice. In “Tools Of Engagement Project (TOEP): Online Professional Development through Structured Inquiry and a Virtual Community,” by Roberta (Robin) Sullivan, Cynthia A. Tysick, Beth Pilawski, Shufang Shi Strause, Cherie van Putten, and Nathan Whitley-Grassi, the authors examine how faculty and instructional design staff from a collaborative of 10 State University of New York institutions created a self-directed, online learning community. The TOEP was designed to allow educators to progress at their own pace through investigative exercises in order to review research on pedagogical uses of Web 2.0 tools and learn to integrate them within instruction. Participants were encouraged to post reflections about their engagement with the tools, earned badges for successful community participation, and provided each other with feedback, mentoring, and support. Results of pre- and post-surveys and participants’ comments have shown TOEP to be an effective PD opportunity to learn about Web 2.0 tools. In “Lessons from the Field: Using Inquiry-Based Learning for Study Abroad Programming,” by Paige E. Sindt and James M. Lucas, the authors investigate how social and technological changes of the 21st century influence how and what students learn while in college. Experiential and IBL are essential to engaging students and achieving the type of learning demanded by today’s global workforce. These skills include critical analysis, systems thinking, problem-solving, and spanning cultural and disciplinary boundaries. No longer can faculty members assume that students will learn from experience alone; they must intentionally construct activities accounting for the specific characteristics and needs of learners. The authors outline trends influencing student learning, making the case

20

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

that traditional, content-based, directed instruction is poorly suited for student learning in the 21st century. The authors suggest that applying experiential and inquiry-based practices are essential to constructing effective education abroad program. In “Understanding the Use of Technology for Facilitating InquiryBased Learning,” by Jaimie Hoffman and Jill Leafstedt, the authors argue that if online education moves toward a dynamic, collaborative, humanized experience, IBL can result almost naturally. The authors provide an overview of how online education and technology-enhanced classes create natural linkages to IBL while meeting the unique needs of diverse learners; general examples of technology as a modality for IBL are provided. The chapter culminates with four case studies that demonstrate how IBL can be facilitated outside of the classroom walls and effectively integrated with technology. The case studies are drawn from education, chemistry, and business providing an example of how to investigate facts through collaborative presentations, develop informed opinions through asynchronous discussion, and make sense of concepts through curation. In “Supporting Equality of Education through Inquiry-Based Learning,” by Joseph O’Shea and Latika L. Young, the authors argue that IBL can be efficacious in providing diverse and flexible levels of challenge to promote educational growth across a variety of populations. The authors position inquiry-based pedagogy as a way to support equality within education, as the practice promotes the academic and personal development of each unique student. The authors ground their argument in a philosophical approach that advocates for equality of educational growth as the principal guiding and evaluating measure. The authors outline how a university can take a scaffolding approach to embedding research-focused, IBL throughout the curricular and co-curricular landscape of an institution, presenting an approach that facilitates students’ growth toward open inquiry and the highest levels of scholarship. The authors focus on programs representing a wide-range of cost and scalability so that they can be implemented to best suit individual institutional needs.

CONCLUSION In this volume, a range of perspectives, case studies, and empirical research have been presented on how IBL is being used across a range of courses to enhance faculty and institutional development. These findings, together with current research on IBL reviewed in the chapters, suggest that the IBL approach and paradigm has great potential to enhance and transform

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

21

teaching and learning. However, the chapter also provided discussion of the challenges that may arise when implementing IBL. Within the context of the diverse, and sometimes competing, purposes of education in the 21st century and the growing demands on education to meet a diverse range of complex political, economic, and social problems and personal needs, education should be a place where lifelong and lifewide learning is cultivated and where self-directed learning is nurtured. As the chapters in this volume illustrate, IBL is an approach and general framework for improving and expanding teaching and learning, and providing educators with new possibilities to enhance and transform how they teach and interact with students and how students interact with each other and the course content. IBL helps expand our notions about what it means to teach and learn in the modern era. IBL supports the development of collaborative skills and respect for multiple perspectives. IBL promotes the importance of learning context and authentic learning. IBL promotes the development of transferable learning skills and higher order thinking. As such, IBL helps cultivate a learning environment that is more meaningful, responsive, integrated, and purposeful.

REFERENCES Association of American Colleges, Universities, and National Leadership Council (US). (2007). College learning for the new global century. A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Augustine, N. R. (2013). One cannot live by equations alone: Education for work and life in the 21st century. Liberal Education, 99(2), 14 21. Barrow, L. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265 278. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349 377. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695 713). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1 18. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21 32. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carfora, J. M. (2011). Navigating between teaching, learning and inquiry. International higher education teaching and learning review. Retrieved from https://www.hetl.org/opinionarticles/teaching-learning-inquiry.

22

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2014). The international baccalaureate: contributing to the use of inquiry in higher education teaching and learning. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Cuneo, C., Harnish, D., Roy, D., & Vajoczki, S. (2012). Lessons learned: The McMaster inquiry story from innovation to institutionalization. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2012(129), 93 104. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/tl.20010/abstract Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Justice, C., Lee, W., Miller, S., Rice, J., … Warry, W. (2001). Thinking and doing outside the box: Interdisciplinary inquiry learning partnerships. Research and Development in Higher Education, 24, 15 22. Daloz Parks, S. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their Search for meaning, purpose and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deardorff, D. K. (2004). Internationalization: In search of international competence. International Educator, 23(2), 13 15. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as a subject matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121 127. Dewey, J. (1916). Methods in science teaching. The Science Quarterly, 1, 3 9. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.). Boston, MA: DC: Heath. Dewey, J. (1938a). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Dewey, J. (1938b). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Doherty, A., Riordan, T., & Roth, J. (2003). Student learning: A central focus for institutions of higher education. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Institute. Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2001). Tell-tale signs of the inquiry-oriented classroom. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 85(623), 24 34. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquirybased learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391 450. Eslinger, E., White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Brobst, J. (2008). Supporting inquiry processes with an interactive learning environment: Inquiry island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 610 617. Freire, P. (1984). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company. Galileo Educational Network. (2013). What is inquiry? Retrieved from http://galileo.org/ teachers/designing-learning/articles/what-is-inquiry/ Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87 105. Gredler, M. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory in practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Pearson. Greene-Clemons, C., & Daniels, K. N. (2014). Strategies for transforming and extending inquiry-based teaching and learning: placers A new model for transformative engagement and educator collaboration. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning

23

Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79(2), 171 212. Hickey, D. T., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technologysupported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6, 155 196. Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry-learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99 107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2001). Teaching the art of inquiry. Halifax, NS: Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Hutchings, W. (2007). Enquiry-based learning: Definitions and rationale. University of Manchester, CEEBL Essays and Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ceebl.manchester. ac.uk/resources/papers/ Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., & Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative Higher Education, 31(4), 201 214. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructiviest, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75 86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Kovbasyuk, O., & Blessinger, P. (2013). Meaning-centered education: International perspectives and explorations in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What They are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U. Lee, V. S. (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 36(3), 149 160. Lee, V. S. (2013). Supporting students’ search for a meaningful life through inquiryguided learning. In Kovbasyuk & Blessinger (Eds.), Meaning-centered education: International perspectives and explorations in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lee, V., Greene, D., Odom, J., Schechter, E., & Slatta, R. (2004). What is inquiry-guided learning? In V. Lee (Ed.), Teaching and learning through inquiry: A guidebook for institutions and instructors (pp. 3 16). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Levy, P., Lameras, P., McKinney, P., & Ford, N. (2011). The pathway to inquiry based science teaching. The Features of Inquiry Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Levy, P., Little, S., McKinney, P., Nibbs, A., & Wood, J. (2010). The Sheffield companion to inquiry-based learning. Sheffield: Centre for Inquiry-Based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sheffield. 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, 921 946. Levy, B. L. M., Thomas, E. E., Kathryn Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining studies of inquiry-based learning in three fields of education sparking generative conversation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 387 408. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. O’Shea, J., & Young, L. L. (2014). Supporting equality of education through inquiry-based learning. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and

24

PATRICK BLESSINGER AND JOHN M. CARFORA

institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays 1985 1990. Norwood, NJ: The Epistemology and Learning Research Group, the Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ablex Publishing Corporation. Patchen, A. K., DeBay, D. J., Barnett, M., & Strauss, E. (2014). Engaging students in scientific inquiry: successes and challenges of engaging non-science majors in scientific inquiry. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Orion Press. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. (1977). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345 372. Schwab, J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review. The University of Chicago Press. Schwab, J. (1966). The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sindt, P. E., & Lucas, J. M. (2014). Lessons from the field: using inquiry-based learning for study abroad programming. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Spoken-Smith, R. (2007). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use of inquiry-based learning in higher education. New Zealand: University of Otago. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/sites/default/files/u14/IBL%20-%20Report%20-% 20Appendix%20A%20-%20Review.pdf Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., & Vine, M. M. (2011). Inquiry learning: Instructor perspectives. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), article 3. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol2/iss2/3/ Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wankel, L., & Blessinger, P. (2013). New pathways in higher education: An introduction to using mobile technologies. In Wankel & Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention using mobile applications: Smartphones, skype, and texting technologies. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Wong-MingJi, D. J., & Wong, G. N. (2014). A theoretical model of collaborative inquiry-based group development process. In P. Blessinger, & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for faculty and institutional development: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (Vol. 1). Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

A THEORETICAL MODEL OF COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY-BASED GROUP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Diana J. Wong-MingJi and Gina N. Wong ABSTRACT This chapter develops a theoretical model of a collaborative inquiry-based group development process with a grounded theory approach. The purpose of this research study is to examine how educators engage in collaborative inquiry-based group development processes that transform their professional identity and pedagogical practices. Qualitative research data comes from the Livingstone Inquiry Group (LIG) in Vancouver, Canada. It is a longitudinal case study of inquiry-based pedagogies (IBPs) in a community of learners. They started in 2007 with members representing K-12 teachers, resource staff, administrators, higher education, and union organizations. The model outlines generative dynamics between social capital and relational learning which support pedagogical paradigm shifts in the group’s collaboration. Implications of this study provide direction for research regarding inquiry-based learning in higher educational institutions as an important forum for sustainable professional development of teachers as life-long learners.

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 25 47 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001004

25

26

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

INTRODUCTION Over the last couple of decades, educators increasingly recognize the necessity for reconfiguring the fundamentals of traditional learning relationships and teacher-student dynamics as the world shifts into the information age or knowledge society (Clark, Livingstone, & Smaller, 2012; CochranSmith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Moreno, 2005). Formerly identified as direct instructional guidance, the related pedagogical practices considered learning as the delivery and consumption of information for memory. However, the need to know “what” became relatively less important than competencies to “search and apply” relevant knowledge, especially for solving seemingly intractable problems (Buckner & Kim, 2014). Inquiry-based learning (IBL) enables students to focus on problem clarification and/or asking significant questions to fuel the discovery of knowledge and deepen their understanding to create viable solutions (Halbert et al., 2013; Levy, Aiyegbayot, & Little, 2009; Marshal & Horton, 2011). For example, McCright (2012) found that IBL advanced STEM students’ education with improvements in knowledge acquisition, research skills, and respect for a broader knowledge base. An important dimension of IBL research is the dual role of teacher and learner because fundamental shifts take place in their professional identity, competencies, and pedagogical practices. This chapter employs a grounded theory approach to derive a theoretical process model of a collaborative inquiry-based group engaged in dual roles as educators and learners. The purpose of this research study is to understand the interactions of educators in collaborative inquiry-based group development processes that contribute toward the transformation of their professional identity and pedagogical practices. The focus is on the adoption, growth, and experience of inquiry in professional development and educational change. The impact of teachers’ professional development on student outcomes is briefly addressed where there is direct correlation but in-depth analysis on student learning is outside the scope of this study. The analysis primarily focuses on a major milestone of reflective responses regarding the inquiry-based professional group development process from the Livingstone Inquiry Group (LIG) in Vancouver, Canada. The central concern for the inquiry-based pedagogies (IBPs) focused on integrating educational technology in classroom learning. They started in 2007 with members from different educational backgrounds that included university professors, graduate and doctoral candidates, practicing

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

27

teachers, administrators, and union researcher. The following discussion has four major sections as follows: (1) a brief literature review about IBL in professional development of teachers in group processes, (2) an outline of the qualitative research study; (3) a discussion of a theoretical model of group development processes for IBLs; and (4) implications for preparing future educator in IBLs, the contributions and limitations of the study.

RESEARCH IN INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Student-centered or minimally guided pedagogies encompass a variety of dynamic instructional practices identified as experiential learning (Allison & Wurdinger, 2005; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Kolb & Kolb, 2009), constructivist learning (Gagnon & Collay, 2005; Hirumi, 2002; Steffe & Gale, 1995), problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Savery, 2006), and discovery learning (Anthony, 1973; Gijlers & de Jong, 2005). IBL (Jansen, 2011; Wurdinger & Carlson, 2009) is a student-centered approach with a shared premise that active student participation in learning increases learning. Becker (2000) discussed the significance of students’ constructing questions to initiate and take ownership of their learning process that forms a central tenet in IBL. At this juncture in the development of education as a field, IBL is still in a relatively nascent stage with a call for further understanding in its practice and development of its practitioners (Atkinson & Hunt, 2008; Capps, Crawford, & Constas, 2012). Butler and Schnellert (2012) also identified the need for further research regarding inquiry-based learning approaches of professional development for teachers to uncover and support impacts of systemic educational change for viable outcomes of student achievement. IBL research is primarily descriptive with significant focus on the different levels of inquiry as described by Banchi and Bell (2008), variations of inquiry-based pedagogy (IBP) (e.g., Jenkins & Healey, 2012; Justice, Rice, Roy, Hudspith, & Jenkins, 2009; Levy & Petrulis, 2012; Spronken-Smith et al., 2011), and more recently, the transformation of educators themselves (e.g., Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2008; Gess-Newsome, Southerland, Johnston, & Woodbury, 2003; Luft, 2001; Roehrig & Luft, 2004; Smart & Marshall, 2013). Justice et al. (2009) defined IBP as both an instructional method that focuses on developing higher level thinking and academic skills through being a student-centered and instructor-guided investigation of student-generated questions and a teaching method that is based on this

28

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

process. This research study explores the impact of IBP on collaborative group development processes in transforming professional identity and shifting pedagogical practices. Their active engagement with questions enables a higher level of comprehension and synthesis of knowledge. Dana and Yendol-Silva (2003) and Dana & Yendol-Hoppey (2008) identified how “by playing with the wording of a wondering (question), teachers often finetune and discover more detail about the subject they are really passionate about understanding” (p.47). However, when researchers examine inquirybased learning from students’ perspectives, findings reveal students tend to pose limited number of questions even with probing (Cazden, 1988; Ciardiello, 2003; Nystrand, 1997) which correlates to the questioning skills and inquiry knowledge of the teachers (CURIOSITIES, 2007). The reasons vary but a significant contributing factor is how students encounter subtle discouragement in traditional learning environments with directive instructions. IBL is examined throughout all levels in education and across many disciplines, but the field has increasing interest in IBL as a teaching method of curriculum and for professional development (Butler & Schnellert, 2012). Justice et al. (2009) described how administrators faced challenges such as resistance to inquiry, willing and suitable instructors, power and financial structural barriers from faculty for introducing and advocating IBL pedagogy in institutions of higher education. At the same time, higher education has a pivotal role in promulgating IBP in the teaching profession. Insights into the professional development of educators are sparse as Gonzalez (2013) described his personal journey with inquiry-based teaching. He provided insights into the risks, challenges, and rewards of building his own competencies to enable IBL among students, including lessons learnt from the students to advance his own professional development. Gonzalez (2013) identified the significance of supportive colleagues and included students in his own professional development process with IBL. The interactive role of both stakeholder groups is significant for sustaining an IBL agenda. While the literature on IBL emphasizes the programmatic pedagogy, we seek to examine the professional development process or journey of a collective that is proactively and highly committed to IBL pedagogy. The following section provides a longitudinal case study of a collaborative IBL group development process that surfaces both individual and collective experiences and draws connections to shifting and furthering educators’ pedagogical understanding of their practice. In particular, the group addressed the need for IBL to integrate technology in education (Buckner & Kim, 2014).

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

29

A CASE STUDY OF A COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY-BASED GROUP Context: Livingstone Inquiry Group This case study focuses on educators engaged in IBL regarding the integration of technological innovations in their classrooms. The LIG was formed in 2007 by a group of teachers from an urban, culturally, linguistically, and socially diverse Kindergarten to Grade Seven public school in Vancouver, Canada. Prior to the formation of LIG, they participated in a school district appreciative inquiry action research project which enabled them to explore the impact of interactive white boards (IWBs) on student engagement and learning. Appreciative inquiry action research is defined by the founding theorists, Cooperrider and Whitney (2001), as “the co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations and relevant world around them … (which) involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate and heighten positive potential” (p. 3) as they address organizational change (Seel, 2008). At this time, they were the first school in the district to adopt IWBs. Following their initial experience in appreciative inquiry, some teachers were dissatisfied with the results and wanted to pursue further investigation. They were convinced that student and classroom dynamics were changing with the integration and increased use of IWBs and wanted to capture these phenomena in concrete ways to increase their understanding of what was happening to student learning. Two university professors and a union educational researcher helped form the LIG to investigate the impact of technological changes in teachers’ professional development and student learning. The initial LIG’s diverse membership included representation from kindergarten to grade seven teachers, resource support or nonenrolling teachers, a teacher-librarian, a graduate student in education, a substitute teacher, and the school administrator. With the exception of one teacher, all participants were based at the same school. The two university professors and the union representative facilitated the LIG. As facilitators, they often affirmed the ownership of forming the meeting agenda. Over the course of seven years, new members from within and outside of the school participated for varying time periods. But a core group of nine educators including teachers, the administrator, the two university professors, and the union representative remained constant. The ability of the long-standing

30

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

members to welcome new participants and adjust to changing group composition strongly reflects their commitment and value of this professional learning community. Lakshmanan, Heath, Perlmutter, and Elder (2011) provided evidence of the benefits of pedagogical and instructional changes with ongoing professional development over a sustained period of time such as one to three years and the importance of collaboration when designing professional development.

Collaborative Group Development LIG met voluntarily and regularly after school for 2 3 hours and 7 10 times during each school year. For the first five years, a university research grant and union funds financed the refreshments and dinner for the meetings as well as release time to meet one-on-one with the facilitators, especially when teachers wanted to gain greater clarity in their area of inquiry and during the writing of chapters for a book or preparing for conference presentations. In the second year, a private Wikispaces page supported the documentation and communication of individual inquiry beyond the in person monthly meetings. Sharing of meals blended the professional conversations with social interactions and a year-end social gathering that was described by one participant, Sylvia as “elevating a work group to a group that works and plays.” Initially, the teachers asked for directions and information to formulate a quantitative research study for their questions about the impact of IWBs technology on teaching and student learning. Establishing a baseline to determine student learning and teacher understanding prior to implementing IBPs is necessary for comparison to determine the impact of IBPs. The LIG members wondered what kind of student baseline data to gather and what pieces of evidence and measures should be used to validate quantitative scientific research. When the facilitators asked for stories and observations of classroom learning and events, teachers started to develop an understanding for alternative data sources which had validity in qualitative research, especially the importance of narratives in revealing understanding and learning. The shift in valuing qualitative data collection and research, trusting the inquiry process, and taking ownership of directing their own learning were challenges for the LIG in the first couple of years. A significant challenge and change for the LIG occurred with the discomfort and ambiguity of finding and determining their own way through

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

31

their individual inquiry. Teachers had to be both the mapmaker and traveler of their inquiry. Their willingness to work through the “messiness” of inquiry deepened teachers’ pedagogical understanding as well as shifted their educational values and beliefs. Continuous learning influenced the direction of the research which resulted in unexpected outcomes and learning results broadened. In the subsequent years, the topics of inquiry expanded from examining the IWB technology to other digital tools as well as implementing IBL for students and colleagues. Repeated experience with the inquiry process enabled LIG participants to implement inquiry in their classroom and work on IBPs with colleagues in other groups beyond their inquiry in the LIG. Lakshmanan et al. (2011) also founded that with repeated practice with new instructional methods, teachers not only gained greater comfort with the practice but also increased teacher efficacy. Group members wrote and published their insights in an edited volume, “Living and Learning in a SmartBoard World” (2012). Members of the Livingstone Group have collectively recognized the value of conversations and of learning from and with each other. Conversations have revealed insights into the potential of IWB technology in classrooms and have enabled teachers to deepen their understanding and teaching practice with IWBs. By examining lived experiences and narratives group members’ integrating IWB technology, insights have demonstrated the positive impact and influence of the learning community on teacher’s pedagogy and in turn student learning. (Fong, 2011, p. 172)

Lessons from the LIG evolved from their private meeting spaces to public spaces through their book publication and various professional development forums such as afterschool board cafes, professional development conferences, and university summer institutes. The teachers’ growth in leadership helped to support colleagues in integrating board technology. Many of the LIG teachers also opened their classrooms for colleagues to observe teaching and learning with boards.

Qualitative Data Collection During the LIG’s sixth year, the ending of the group was anticipated and the participants were asked to reflect upon their cumulative inquiry experiences. As a retrospective sense-making process, context and frames of references for the qualitative data likely shifted over time. Hence, reflective responses to the open-ended questions must be valued for their whole-scale cumulating nature for a meaningful point in time of development rather

32

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

than an in-the-moment process of development. Participants responded in writing to the following questions: • How has your participation in the Inquiry Group contributed to professional and personal growth? • How has this impacted your understanding or shifted your philosophy or practice? • Do you think you are a better teacher? Why? • How have others in the Inquiry Group contributed to your growth? • What was a significant critical incident during your time in the Inquiry Group? • What new skills have you developed? • Where have and might you take your learning and understanding in the future? • What reflections do you have about the group as a whole? Eight of the original members who were involved for all six years provided detailed written responses and reflected upon all the proposed questions. Briefer responses came from three members who participated for only two to three years. Responses represented the multiple educational perspectives from the diverse group membership. The range of teaching experiences spanned from 4 years to over 20 years and the administrators years of experience in their role ranged from 3 to 22 years. This study is based on a grounded theory of analysis of their reflective responses to the above questions. All quotes are an introspection and retrospection of their LIG participation and experience in the sixth year of this group’s existence. The qualitative data were sorted into thematic patterns with multiple iterations until the most essential concepts emerged. Deriving the essential concepts required focusing on the deeper levels of meaning within the contextual social relationships. Two researchers from higher education worked independently to review the raw data to generate, sort, and interpret the categories for comparison as well as collaboratively resolving a few differences in categorizing quotes in discussions.

A PROPOSED THEORETICAL MODEL OF A COLLABORATIVE: INQUIRY-BASED GROUP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The case of LIG exemplifies an inquiry-based group development process. Participants in the LIG described their professional development

33

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

Colla bor ati ve

Learning Grou sed pD a B ev yr i elo qu

Relational Learning: Reflective Engagement Learning as a Journey Feedback Support

Generative Social Capital

Relational Learning

Generative Social Capital: Time Openness Listening Humor Respect

ss roce tP en pm

In

conversations and experience as powerful, valuable, impactful, and best learning for a lifetime. An investigation into the key features of the model is examined through reflective responses from 11 diverse key participants. The model outlines how integrating generative social capital and relational learning enables pedagogical paradigm shifts (see Fig. 1). The outcomes of a sustainable collaborative inquiry-based group are pedagogical paradigm shifts that depend upon innovations developed within a dynamic complex social context with self-generative mechanisms. Challenges from diverse educational perspectives help to develop innovative ideas that need support from generating social capital with relational learning. The three major components constantly interact in a reciprocal fashion to positively develop a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle. The collaborative IBL group development process is an effective professional development approach for shifting teachers’ pedagogical paradigm in meaningful and authentic ways. The three interactive components need to be developed with a skilled, knowledgeable facilitator in the inquiry process. The facilitator fosters not

IBL/ IBP

Multilevel Pedagogical Paradigm Shift

Multilevel Pedagogical Paradigm Shift: Collaboration

Fig. 1. Collaborative Inquiry-Based Learning Group Development Process. Note: Inquiry-based learning (IBL) and inquiry-based pedagogy (IBP) are central and generate the three related spirals in fostering collaborative inquiry-based learning group development process.

34

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

only the social capital of listening but models deep listening as well as how to use time and create openness for further understanding and learning. The educators in the study identified valuable outcomes from their participation in collaborative IBL group development process such as increased confidence in teaching, deeper understanding of pedagogy, impact on student outcomes, authentic learning directly connected to one’s teaching context, and a supportive network to develop professionally. Support and involvement from administrators, university faculty, and union representatives not only offered alternative perspectives but also valued and honored the work of teachers in a meaningful manner. Thus, an outside representative provides subtle and concrete validity to the inquiry of participants within such a group. The following discussions provide specific details about each of the three interrelated components. Generative Social Capital The LIG built social capital over the course of generating a positive virtuous leadership collaborative. Social capital is defined as “… a resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among the actors” (Baker, 1990, p. 619). The relational resources evolved from the generation of positive personal and professional connections that support the individual development within a community of practice. Key elements for generative positive social capital included time, openness, listening, humor, and respect. Time Time provided opportunities to focus, revisit, dwell, and reflect on a topic that was repeatedly mentioned in all the reflective responses. Meaningful and lengthy discussions about teaching, learning, pedagogy, values, and beliefs and innovations organically surfaced from what was shared by individuals. Deeper professional conversations occurred which contrasted sharply to the snatched conversations by the photocopier or in the hallways during the daily routines of the teaching day. Being in this group has forced me to sit down and take the time to reflect on what I’m doing and WHY. (Alicia) This gave us the time and place, not only for the initial conversation but reflection and return. The same topics resurface and more interesting than ever. The gift of time lets us go beyond those snatched moments between classes when you say, “You won’t

35

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process believe what Suzie did today.” I have the time, opportunity, and technology to show the group. I feel validated, excited, and inspired. (Dorothy)

Flexibility in loose agendas enabled longer or shorter conversations. Participation was high with 70 100% attendance at each meeting which was after school from four o’clock to seven o’clock with a dinner break. People made a commitment to set this time aside seven to ten meeting times during the school year for professional learning with the LIG. Openness The “openness” of the group was evident in multiple ways from welcoming academic and union representatives, accepting the influx and outflow of new members to embarking on qualitative research such as inquiry, but most prominently in exploring possibilities of innovative teaching and learning with students at the core of all their work. While diverse perspectives are critical in exploring new ideas, innovation, and improved judgment about opportunities (Mannix & Neale, 2005), differences also include disagreements and reduced confidence (Sniezek, 1992) which need to be constructively resolved. Members described this as “living on the edge” (David) and “colouring outside the lines” (Sylvia). In the reflections, all members stated recognition of new perspectives, insights, and thinking from different educational fields ranging from the classroom, resource center, library, administration, academia, to the union. I developed new perspectives in so many areas it is hard to list them. (David

principal)

The group has deepened my understanding of both my perspective of the value of collaborative inquiry and my practice of working in group settings. (Gaalen university professor) It’s also helped me to understand the wide range of what can be considered Inquiry and to be much more sure that conversation is crucial to Inquiry processes, but likely best with a group that can listen, assimilate the information, consider how to connect/extend it so that the conversation becomes a scaffold of greater understanding, with people adding to the points raised before. (Charlie union researcher)

All LIG participants identified a broader and deeper understanding into the complexities of the inquiry process. In particular, teachers noted greater willingness to deviate from their comfort zone to experiment with new ideas, introduce strategies based on conceptual thinking, and to adapt lessons from different grade levels. The LIG nurtured belief in teacher’s potential to address student needs as well as provided “opportunities, resources, and support to explore one’s passions and potential, no matter how crazy the idea (Monica).”

36

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG … now I’m more willing to experiment and try new things. (Alicia) I was challenged to think about what Kindergarten students could do in this same format. (Gina) Without hearing how others are rejuvenated by their teaching, how they have progressed, or what has/hasn’t worked lends credibility to what I’ve been doing, and gives me the courage to try something new, too. (Sharon)

One of the teachers (Rebecca) valued how the LIG connected her to colleagues who demonstrated openness to shift and change their teaching paradigms to better meet the needs of the students in their classrooms as they examined their teaching practice. A clear example of the openness to learning and risk taking in their teaching was the personal passion projects where students were asked to create IWB presentations about their personal passions or interests. Initially, the personal passion projects were an assignment for grades six and seven students who shared their interests in popular culture, musicians, and sports. When the primary teachers listened to the sharing of these personal passion projects in the LIG, they wondered how younger students might be able to create and share their personal interests in a similar way with the IWB technology. As a result, the grade two and three teachers adapted the project framework and provided additional support for the primary students who were able to design and present their personal interests on the IWBs with similar finesse. A kindergarten teacher was also challenged and questioned if this was possible for the youngest learners in the school. With modifications and scaffolding, the realization was similar. The students continually surpassed teachers’ expectations when working with an IBL approach in adopting technological tools. With increased knowledge and understanding of what students were capable of, the personal passion projects became twofold; one part focused on designing an engaging and interactive presentation that promoted media literacy and the second part concentrated on oral communication skills by developing speech and body posture. Questions about student relationships and classroom community emerged as a result of this project. The personal passion project by students on the IWB represented one of many catalytic narratives of student learning and teaching practice that stimulated and spiraled pedagogical thinking and understanding in the inquiry conversations. Individual teachers were inspired and made connections to their teaching contexts. They built on the examples and learning of colleagues. Laurie, LIG teacher identified how “listening to colleagues’ thinking,” encouraged her to “pause and think” and how “it is your obligation

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

37

to make the connection as to where in the sharing piece can I take away for my teaching?” Listening Deep listening was a distinguishing attribute of the LIG. Listening enabled people to process their actions and deepen their understanding about pedagogy, learning principles, and innovative practices. People demonstrated authenticity in listening and most importantly, acting as a reflective mirror for colleagues to develop greater clarity about teaching. Listening to one another’s stories was encouraging and motivating to adopt innovative practices. I particularly like that I can listen to what everyone else is working on in their classrooms because it helps me stay motivated and reflect back on what I’m doing in my classroom. (Alicia) Hearing about what others are doing, reflecting on, and continuing to question about their teaching practice has definitely shaped how I think about and reflect on my own teaching. It is the time taken out to reflect, have others comment on, and give feedback that propels me forward. (Sharon) Repeated responses identified how individuals were “challenged to think more about the “why” besides the “what” and “how” of teaching and learning.” (Gina)

Many members were challenged to think more deeply about concepts, frameworks, theories, and pedagogical beliefs in their daily practice. One administrator described the affective impact from listening and reflecting upon these conversations in these words: I was in constant awe of the insights members of the group had into all so many areas. There was not a night went by, when I didn’t leave exhilarated and challenged in my thinking. (David)

Deep listening can dissolve barriers and view differences as strengths between grade levels. One intermediate teacher, Laurie stated how she now values the contributions and learning from primary colleagues and broadened her perspective of professional development. Prior to LIG involvement, she could not perceive relevant pedagogical discussions with primary teachers for professional development. Laurie changed her mindset which now recognizes “cross grade level implications,” “relevant connections,” and shares practices as stimulating self-reflection of her own teaching. She “sees it as an obligation and pleasure to listen to others present and come away to look at the thinking” (Laurie). The learning is enduring and deeper instead of incidental and short lived.

38

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

In most meetings, the facilitators rarely spoke a great deal but modeled attentive deep listening and posed thought-provoking questions for participants to delve deeper. I learned to ask the tough questions, to take a different viewpoint and to defend a position. His questions were invaluable to prodding my thinking a little further and little deeper. (Sylvia)

Gaalen’s participation from a higher education perspective supported his facilitation role that modeled key behaviors critical to an inquiry process. Naylor (2011, p. 157) outlined how the listening role of the facilitator was increasingly and repeatedly assumed by participants which is “a rare and privileged experience” and this allowed facilitators to “listen, absorb and relax sufficiently, since processes are being looked after by the group.” The ability of the group to listen carefully for extended thinking and understanding was repeatedly highlighted in the union representative’s reflection. Humor Humor contributed an amusing perspective with a different lens that enabled laughter and often pivoted situations with witty analogies for creative thinking. Learning metaphors included examples such as “coloring outside the lines” when trying innovative ideas, “IWB teaching and learning is like Viagra” for the engagement and enthusiasm of teachers and students, “finding the sweet spot” for the right amount of student leadership or scaffold so students take ownership of the learning for peers and “guide by the side” when the teacher assumes a facilitating instead of direct teaching role. Our conversations are often profound, sometimes profane (maybe that’s just me) and humorous—often at the same time! (Dorothy) However, it’s not only her wicked sense of humor that impressed me but also her dedication to her students and their growth and her generosity. (Monica) He always brought his notebook, kept track of the thinking, found connections and added a lot of humor to the meetings. (Charlie) The laughter created through the sharing of frank and funny experiences and “ability to laugh in the face obstacles” illuminated opportunities to take risks and “be dazzled with the consequences” as well as “try harder” under challenging circumstances (Sylvia).

Respect Respect is apparent in the acceptance of different members who flow in and out of the group and a genuine interest in each participant’s inquiry.

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

39

This is a social paradigm shift for some members to become more inclusive of others who have differing world views. Consideration supported individuals who required different amounts of time and feedback during the sharing of their inquiry. Appreciation for the diversity of experiences of members within the group enabled the unique voice of each member to contribute in an authentic manner. Gina, an LIG teacher, summarized it in this way “The voice and opinion of each participant were valued and honored within the LIG.” Feeling comfortable and vulnerable to share not only with colleagues in the LIG but also with students in the classroom was mentioned in many reflections. I became comfortable discussing failures and my practice. I became comfortable because I trusted the group, knew I was accepted as a professional, and that we shared a common purpose. (Sylvia) It has reinforced my strongly held beliefs regarding the necessity for teachers and other educators to engage in respectful conversations about practice AND about underlying understandings of how students (and adults for that matter) learn.… By participating in a thoughtful and respectful manner, in different ways all members of the group were important in creating the many different outcomes that were experienced by the group over the past 7 years. (Gaalen)

The respectfulness within the inquiry group reflected trusting relationships to share when ideas and teaching failed or did not unfold as planned. In one member’s (Sylvia) words, “Where else is a teaching disaster applauded? Why did it not work? What can you take away?” The “disaster” became a problem-solving challenge for the whole group to address. Individuals were willing to work through obstacles or challenges. They recognized that colleagues in the inquiry group were available to offer support and encouragement. They had a network of support that encouraged them to develop and strengthen their practice. Furthermore, respect enables possibilities through nurturing the curiosity of teachers. Charlie observed many times where “a mundane conversation (shifted) into a very different space full of curiosity, insights, realizations and conversation flows into a more explicit focus on practice.” They were willing to explore, investigate, and learn about things they were observing in their students and practice with the integration of IWB technology. As a result, they continued to further their professional learning and growth in different directions. This group is not satisfied with status quo but continued to ask “What if …” and “I wonder …” which is one of the key reasons for their vibrant long-term sustainability.

40

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG When Dorothy started talking about passion projects and what her students would be doing. It got me thinking what I could do with the Primary students and passion projects. What was I passionate about at the age of 6? What are the kids passionate about at the age of 6? I came up with Hot Wheels.… Since then, I have done other passion projects like LEGO, and have LEGO, a doll house, a train set and K-NEX in the library. (Sylvia)

Teachers’ professional development learning is reciprocal to the successful learning of their students which fuels teachers to continue to adopt ongoing teaching practices to encourage further successful learning (Doig & Groves, 2011; Ingvarson Beavis, Bishop, Peck, & Elsworth, 2004). As the above teacher-librarian, Sylvia, described, she posed the same questions for herself as a model for student learning and situated the concepts in her particular context. This has been transformative in how she presently views and organizes the library as an information and learning center.

Relational Learning Reflective Engagement Reflections from the teachers demonstrate the power of informative and transformative effects of reflective practice in a group. Enduring professional and personal growth increases with ongoing, active reflection through thoughtful conversations with a group of diverse, committed colleagues. It really has been a no-fail zone in that the reflection of why something has or has not worked is looked at by others from their own experiences and perspectives. I may not have all the answers, but as a group of teachers who are continually questioning why they do what they do, the group gives insight into things that I hadn’t thought of myself. (Sharon) I am more confident in my practice, because I have reflected, discussed and shown it enough to know that it is what I believe. (Gina)

Teachers shifted in their practice by spending more time on the value, goal, and purpose of student learning and student ownership of their learning instead of what to do and narrow learning product outcomes. Learning as a Journey Teachers moved from a private space of teaching to public forums that required exposing and substantiating one’s practice. Members of the LIG participated in authoring inquiry-based learning articles in journals and books, presenting workshops, planning, and organizing conferences and

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

41

professional development opportunities, modeling, and demonstrating lessons in their classrooms as observations sites and acting as resources in educational technology integration and in the IBL. All of the LIG teachers demonstrated greater confidence and awareness of themselves as “better teachers” (Rebecca) when they shared their private teaching practice. The opportunities of presenting at workshops have really helped me grow as a teacher. I’ve personally reflected on how to prepare for a workshop, how to deliver a workshop effectively, and solidifying my own belief in why I do what I do and how I do it in my teaching. (Sharon) I also think the CSSE presentation in 2008 was a defining moment when teachers attracted a significant number of attendees at their session it showed there is a demand for seeing K-12 teachers present at what is predominantly an academic conference. (Charlie) As a group we were challenged to put our pedagogy, values and belief and practice out in a very public way to a the wider educational field. (Gina)

Charlie, the union representative identified that the book publication was “pivotal taking the ‘private’ space of the group into the more public space of publication.” The conversations and deeper reflections identified important highlights and accomplishments of professional learning as a result of writing for an external audience. Sharing teaching practices in public forums prompted increasing professional conversations about pedagogy, theories, and research in the group. Darling-Hammond (2010) concurred that supporting teachers to examine and learn from their practice is one of the most effective ways to foster educational change.

Feedback Support The feedback support was apparent in the care and respect of the LIG. Diverse insights prompted further questions of teaching and learning practices that led to further innovative ideas or deepening of inquiry. The inquiry group has given me invaluable feedback and encouragement and has given me inspiration to try many new things in my classroom. (Monica)

Feedback on inquiry was given not only orally through the conversations in the group meetings but also in writing through emails and on the private Wikispaces page. Since many LIG worked in collaboration with other colleagues, there was ongoing feedback and sharing occurring outside the meeting times between individuals.

42

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

Pedagogical Paradigm Shifts Collaboration Among the members of the group, collaboration further increased and strengthened their mutual respect for one another. Subgroups formed for varying interests and projects. The intermediate teachers collaboratively designed unit plans and lessons on themes such as Slavery, Child Labour, and World War I and II for different levels of learners. Primary and intermediate teachers collaborated to create imovies and document learning. The constant sharing provided increasing accessibility to new ideas while the participants’ accommodation for each other’s different perspectives was coupled with accountability for constant challenges to improve their professional capabilities. The collaboration among the group had a significant and lasting impact on the professional development of all members. The academic from a higher education perspective contributed an essential role in capturing and transforming the development of tacit knowledge to explicit transferable knowledge. While everyone collaborated on writing and editing chapters to publish a book, this critical incident solidified learning and reinforced the group relationships. The academic researcher described the power of this inquiry group as: … one of the most stimulating and productive groups that I have worked with over the last thirty years that I’ve been actively involved in working collaboratively with teachers. (Gaalen)

Many participants experienced the “power of teacher collaboration” (Rebecca) in this group. The collaborative nature of this group conveyed a shift in their pedagogical practice. They shifted from working in isolation to the power that a group can generate in not only their individual but collective teaching practices. Sylvia, the teacher-librarian, stated “working by yourself, with no one to share with, isn’t good enough to improve one’s teaching.” Building collaborative practices among teachers continues to be an ongoing focus and even a challenge for many educational communities. Shifting Pedagogical Paradigms Luft’s (2001) research identified how beliefs of secondary science teachers make changing or innovating with pedagogies quite challenging. Without the necessary sustained support, teachers tend to shift back to more traditional practices and even they understand the need for education reform. Within the LIG collaboration for inquiry, teachers managed to sustain fundamental pedagogical paradigm shifts. Pedagogical understanding shifted

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

43

and developed individually and collectively in the LIG. This was the area of substantial growth and understanding for the teachers as they examined and reflected upon the “why” of their practice to access deep purpose, understanding, and knowledge. During the daily school schedule and conversations, situations rarely allowed for in-depth pedagogical discussions with colleagues. Participating in the inquiry these 5 + years helped me expand my pedagogical horizons … my pedagogy now focuses on helping my students reach their full potential in ways that are accessible to them. (Monica) The positive response of the Inquiry group to my ideas has given me permission to think about education differently. Checking the curriculum boxes isn’t as important as developing citizenry skills such as strong communicative skills, critical thinking, research and problem solving. Hopefully my students will see themselves as part of the learning process. I want to be the ‘Guide on the Side’. (Rebecca) I am much less curriculum driven, and more skill based. I am less top down and more student based, hands on, experimental, creative but still believe in explicit skill training. (Sylvia)

Teachers shifted their pedagogy from being content driven to process and skill, curriculum based to student based, isolated teaching to collaborative teaching, private to public practice, and passive learners to active inquirers. Student learning was always at the forefront of the conversations. By giving students greater ownership of learning as collaborators, contributors, and researchers (November, 2012) and shifting the role of the teachers to guides, coaches, and facilitators, the culture of learning changes in the classroom where all members are actively involved. The teachers observed increased engagement and motivation of student learning, and development of leadership skills and roles with students integrating the use of technological tools. As a result of these shifts, the teachers began to establish stronger ethical and social responsibility connections with topics. The benefits of a collaborative IBL group are opportunities for sustained innovations that improve the outcomes of students in specific teachers’ contexts. The process is driven by a teacher identified inquiry in a network that supports reflections for IBL that is in turn desired in student inquiry.

IMPLICATIONS The proposed theoretical model of collaborative inquiry-based group development process is based on three interactive components generative social capital, relational learning, and pedagogical paradigm shifts. Social

44

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

capital is generated from time, openness, listening, humor, and respect. Relational learning encompasses reflective engagement, learning as a journey, and feedback support. Both social capital and relational learning enable innovations collaborations that become embedded in pedagogical paradigm shifts. The main contribution of this research is to examine key elements of collaborative group development processes that support the dynamic generation of inquiry-based practices. Transforming teaching from direct instructional guidance to guided student-centered approaches is a significant change. This requires development with diverse professional peers and stimulated with facilitation from higher education academicians who can straddle and transfer their tacit knowledge base of research inquiry into a K-12 teaching context beyond the university. The challenges in implementing such a collaborative IBL group model involve addressing misconceptions or lack of knowledge about IBL, resistance to change from passive to active learners, and identifying areas of wondering which can be perceived as incompetence. If we are to address the future demands for higher order and creative thinking and problemsolving skills, a future consideration for teacher education program is to reflect on how a collaborative PBL group development process may be implemented to facilitate higher education’s curriculum development for teacher education. In conclusion, a contribution of this theoretical model of collaborative inquiry-based group development process is the identification of three critical components that are necessary for the sustainability of an inquiry-based professional development group. While many diverse groups are rarely sustainable beyond the first, or the first few, cycles of iterative IBL, the model provides a direction for sustainable engagements that not only deepens IBL within the group but enables long-term impact in the educational community in different directions. Limitation of this chapter is determining how environmental factors can support or hinder group development processes for IBPs and how online educational processes could integrate IBL in online teaching platforms. The role of administrative leadership in the school likely plays a significant role that needs to be further explored. Future considerations in higher education include IBL groups on campus with K-12 teachers as facilitators in a reversal of roles and research forums related to building sustainable collaborations for an inquiry that addresses the needs of complex changing global and technologically rich environments. Also, the role of higher education in preparing future teachers requires in-depth examination of the teacher education curriculum that

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

45

prepares teachers for IBL pedagogies not just in the classroom but also in their professional community.

REFERENCES Allison, P., & Wurdinger, S. (2005). Understanding the power, promise, and peril of the experiential learning process. Teacher Education and Practice, 18(4), 386 399. Anthony, W. S. (1973). Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 355 384. Atkinson, M. P., & Hunt, A. N. (2008). Inquiry-guided learning in sociology. Teaching Sociology, 36, 1 7. Baker, W. E. (1990). Market networks and corporate behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 589 625. Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26 29. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer. Becker, R. R. (2000). The critical role of students’ questions in literacy development. Educational Forum, 64(3), 261 271. Buckner, E., & Kim, P. (2014). Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The Stanford Mobile inquiry-based learning environment. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 44(1), 99 118. Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(8), 1206 1220. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. New York, NY: Springer. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. Ciardiello, A. V. (2003). “To wander and wonder”: Pathways to literacy and inquiry through question-finding. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 228 239. Clark, R., Livingstone, D. W., & Smaller, H. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher learning and power in the knowledge society. The knowledge economy and education series. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249 305. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. Public Administration and Public Policy, 87, 611 630. CURIOSITIES, O. N. (2007). Did you ask a good question today? Teaching for Intelligence, 101. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator’s guide to professional development: Coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

46

DIANA J. WONG-MINGJI AND GINA N. WONG

Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). Japanese lesson study: Teacher professional development through communities of inquiry. Mathematics teacher education and development, 13(1), 77 93. Fong, B. L. (2011). Teacher conversations; Building a learning community with interactive whiteboards. In the Livingstone Inquiry Group. Living and Learning in a Smart Board World (pp. 165–180). Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2005). Constructivist learning design: Key questions for teaching to standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731 767. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264 282. Gonzalez, J. J. (2013). My journey with inquiry-based learning. Journal on Excellent on College Teaching, 24(2), 33 50. Halbert, J., Kaser, L., BC Principals’, & Vice-Principals’ Association. (2013). Spirals of inquiry: For equity and quality. Vancouver: BC Principals’ & Vice-Principals’ Association. Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497 537. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235 266. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., Bishop, A., Peck, R., & Elsworth, G. (2004). Investigation of effective mathematics teaching and learning in Australian secondary schools. Canberra: Council for Educational Research. Jansen, B. A. (2011). Inquiry unpacked: An introduction to inquiry-based learning. Library Media Connection, 29(5), 10 12. Jenkins, M., & Healey, M. (2012). Developing and embedding inquiry-guided learning across an institution. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (129), 27 37. Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58, 841 855. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297 327. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 33 57). New York, NY: Wiley. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534 551. Levy, P., Aiyegbayot, O., & Little, S. (2009). Designing for inquiry-based learning with the learning activity management system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 238 251. Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85 101. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practice and beliefs? The impact of a one-year inquiry based professional development program on the beliefs and practices of secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 83(5), 517 534.

Collaborative Inquiry-Based Group Development Process

47

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31 55. Marshall, J., & Horton, R. (2011). The relationship of teacher-facilitated, inquiry-based instruction to student higher-order thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 111(3), 93 103. McCright, A. M. (2012). Enhancing students’ scientific and quantitative literacies through an inquiry-based learning project on climate change. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(4), 86 102. Moreno, J. M. (2005). Learning to teach in the knowledge society. Final report. HDNED, World Bank. Naylor, C. (2011). 21st-Century learning – Widening the frame of focus and debate: A BCTF research discussion paper. BCTF Research. November, A. (2012). Who owns the learning?: Preparing students for success in the digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3 24. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 3. Seel, R. (2008). Introduction to appreciative inquiry. Retrieved from URL http://www. newparadigm. co. uk/introduction_to_ai. htm. Accessed on May 5, 2012. Smart, J. B., & Marshall, J. C. (2013). Interactions between classroom discourse, teacher questioning, and student cognitive engagement in middle school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 249 267. Sniezek, J. A. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124 155. Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Dickinson, K., Closs, G. P., Lord, J. M., & Harland, T. (2011). Redesigning a curriculum for inquiry: An ecology case study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 721 735. Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. (2009). Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. R&L Education.

STRATEGIES FOR TRANSFORMING AND EXTENDING INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING: PLACERS A NEW MODEL FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATOR COLLABORATION Cheresa Greene-Clemons and Kisha N. Daniels ABSTRACT Educators often stress the importance and value of interdisciplinary/ cross-disciplinary measures that contribute to the holistic development of students through attention to experiential learning activities. However, collaborative approaches that reach outside or across disciplines are often overwhelming and time consuming for faculty to develop. Often, faculty would like to expand learning opportunities through collaborative

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 49 72 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001005

49

50

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

approaches for their students to experience successful engagement although they may not have the “know-how.” This chapter provides a framework that can be used to develop both collaborative interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary teaching and inquiry-based engagement. The authors developed the PLACERS model (Plan, Create, Engage, Reflect, and Share) in an effort to extend learning experiences in a preprofessional learning environment and to advocate collaboration. Implementing this model, along with a variety of inquiry-based activities produces opportunities for students to increase content knowledge, engagement, and critical thinking skills. Moreover, it provides a guide/schema for educators to delve into collaborative instruction. This chapter documents the process of interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary collaboration between social science and professional practice faculty who developed transformational approaches to expand inquiry-based teaching through experiential learning. As a result of this collaboration, structured reflection strategies were developed which allowed students to: practice critical thinking and problem-solving skills, utilize 21st century technology, and increase content knowledge.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TEACHING AND LEARNING Conventional pedagogic approaches position the teacher as the designer of every aspect of the learning; including what, when, and how something will be learned (Woo & Reeves, 2007). This thereby leads to learning that is less cooperative and more didactic. This approach locates the learner in a largely passive and submissive role in which the ramifications potentially foster dependency on the teacher rather than produce autonomous learners (Knowles, 1984). However, Mezirow’s (1997) seminal work cited that in order for education to be truly transformative three important factors should be considered; 1. The role of the educator It is the role of the educator to be a facilitator and to promote discovery learning through the implementation of the classroom method. These methods facilitate transformative learning by helping learners examine concepts in context and analyze new knowledge. 2. The role of the learner It is the role of the learner to construct knowledge about themselves, others, and social norms through active participation and assessment of assumptions.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

51

3. The role of the professional developer It is the role of the professional developer to introduce teaching techniques that connect theory to practice, assist educators to critically examine their practice, and develop alternative perspectives. In an effort to support these ideals, the authors developed an interdisciplinary collaboration teaching and learning model, which benefits both faculty and students. The PLACERS model was developed to increase inquiry by offering secondary and higher education faculty/instructors a guide to structure problem-based learning projects that “place” the student at the forefront of the learning and “place” the faculty in the background as facilitator. Drawing on Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory as the rationale for the collaboration and Service-Learning as the instructional pedagogy has grounded the foundation of the design. Bass’ (1985) theory suggests that leaders who exhibit transformational characteristics tend to have a greater impact on positive change within their respective organization, for example, motivation. According to Miner (2005), transformational leadership revitalizes organizations and develops a new vision for change in the organization. Miner specifically suggests that transformational leaders motivate their followers to become revitalized and motivated about what they are expected to do within the organization. Faculty who place transformational leadership at the forefront of teaching work toward continuous instructional development that ultimately improves the organization. As well, they strive to impose this theory on student learning in an effort to develop even more transformational leaders; thereby transforming them into leaders in their chosen career paths to continue the cycle (Bass, 2003). Bass’ theory aligns with Collins (2011) who reported that, “an important role of education is to prepare young people for the future, including preparation for productive work and for involved citizenship” (p. 101). As a form of experiential education, service-learning sets itself apart from other teaching strategies as a method that incorporates academic learning objectives with community service and practical career experience to deepen both the service and learning experiences. This activity is especially supportive for students in preprofessional programs; areas of academic interest for students who intend to enter professional schools after graduation (prehealth, education, nursing, medicine, etc.). Service-learning was chosen as the vehicle for the collaboration because it offers multiple opportunities to engage students in independent and structured inquiry-based learning along with critical thinking. As well, a major focus of service-learning is to ensure a reciprocal benefit between the

52

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

student and the community partner (Evans, 2013; Novak & Murray, 2009), thereby contributing to transformational outcomes in academic growth, career preparedness, and leadership. Service-learning is defined as a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities with the following attributes: 1. Students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet actual needs and that are coordinated in collaboration with schools and communities; 2. It is integrated into the students’ academic curriculum or provides structured time for a student to think, talk, or write about what the student did and saw during the service activity; 3. It provides students with opportunities to use newly acquired skills and knowledge in real-life situations in a community; 4. It enhances what is taught in the classroom by extending student learning beyond the classroom and into the community and helps to foster the development of a sense of caring for others and civic engagement (Wolf & Laurier, 2006; Wurr & Hamilton, 2012). Even though, there is substantial evidence that supports these benefits, an extensive national survey of preprofessional training programs (nursing, public health, psychology, and food & nutrition) found only a few cases where service-learning was central to preparation programs (Kesten, 2012; Stenberg, 2010). Pribbenow (2005), specifically touts that a vital benefit of servicelearning is to reject the historical banking model of education, in which the downward transference of information from knowledgeable teachers is conducted in minute increments to passive students who bank and store information instead of actively processing and critically analyzing information. According to McKay and Rozee (2004), faculty members who participate in service-learning often display a tendency toward innovations and a desire to create environments that are optimal for student learning. Encouraging higher education faculty to shift their paradigms of teaching and instruction to more cooperative and inquiry-based approaches has the potential to result in increased content knowledge, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills. The faculty who collaborated to design the PLACERS model both teach at a large, urban university and had previously used service-learning to increase engagement and content knowledge in preprofessional methods courses, although they had not tackled an interdisciplinary service-learning collaboration. However, the opportunity ultimately presented itself as a

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

53

collaboration between The Center for Translational Health Equality (CTHER) and the School of Education (see Fig. 1). The CTHER supports the Education, Research and Training Core (Ed. Core) of the National Institute of Health’s P20 grant. A P20 grant provides funding to an institution to support planning for new programs, expansion or modification of existing resources, and feasibility studies to explore various approaches to the development of interdisciplinary programs. The Ed. Core is responsible for recruiting Nursing, Public Health, Nutrition, and Psychology undergraduate majors into a training program to develop activities, which prepares them to conduct meritorious research and pursue careers in health disparities research in minority communities. The “Healthy ChildrenHealthy World” service-learning project was a collaborative effort between CTHER, the School of Education, and a local elementary school. The grant, entering into the third year of a five-year cycle has recruited over 20 non-STEM undergraduate and graduate students (referred to as CTHER Fellows). In 2012, the Ed. Core assumed new Principal Investigator leadership. This new direction brought about a theoretical shift to ensure that all training activities were grounded in research-proven teaching and learning

Transformational Leadership Service-Learning

The Center for Translational Health Equality Research Foods & Nutrition, Psychology, Nursing and Public Health Pre-Professional Programs

Faculty Member

Foods & Nutrition, Psychology, Nursing and Public Health Students "Fellows"

Fig. 1.

The School of Education Elementary Education Pre-Professional Program

Faculty Member

Elementary Education "Buddies"

Organizational Chart for Multidisciplinary Collaboration Service-Learning Project.

54

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

theories that provided opportunities for experiential learning and inquirybased activities.

PLACERS (PLAN, CREATE, ENGAGE, REFLECT, AND SHARE) A New Model for Transformative Engagement and Educator Collaboration All too often, higher education faculty rely on traditional and didactic measures to support student learning, such as lecture, Q&A, and solely theory-based instruction. These strategies however may fall short of collaboratively engaging learners, thereby depriving them of opportunities for successful critical reflection. The foundation for the PLACERS model was to “place” the student at the forefront of the learning and “place” the faculty in the background as facilitator. This was completed by utilizing a cyclical rotation that was built upon Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Theory of Learning. Kolb’s Experiential Theory of Learning states that experiences and how individuals reflect on them are integral to the learning process. These ideas are displayed in Fig. 2, which portrays the steps in the cycle. The technical, historical model suggests that learning moves through four stages; (1) concrete experience, (2) followed reflective observation, (3) formation of abstract conceptualization, and (4) active experimentation to test Concrete Experience (doing / having an experience)

Active Experimentation

Reflective Observation

(planning / trying out what you have learned)

(reviewing / reflecting on the experience)

Abstract Conceptualisation (concluding / learning from the experience)

Fig. 2.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

55

newly developed principles. This process culminates in a transfer of learning. Most importantly, the model suggests that purposeful reflection, questioning, and planning bring about a transfer of learning and increase critical thinking. The PLACERS model serves dual purposes, presenting itself as a guide for both faculty collaboration as well as student learning (see Fig. 3). Faculty who strategically “place” themselves as facilitators of the learning by designing activities and experiences that “place” the students at the center of the learning, create opportunities for independently fostered and highly engaged learning and transformation. Within each component of the PLACERS model are strategically designed activities that provide a template to design and extend learning experiences. These activities advocate for collaboration among faculty in an approach to transform students and the community. 1. Plan the experience: Brainstorm the issues and possible solutions to the problem. 2. Create the motivation: Bring in an “expert” to discuss how the issue is related to larger social issues as a means to provide intrinsic value. 3. Engage in the work: Provide structure and multiple opportunities for the students to work collaboratively with faculty, students, and the community. 4. Reflect on the work: Provide the structure for multiple opportunities to reflect on the experience. 5. Share and celebrate the work: Provide multiple opportunities to share reflections and public celebrations of the successes.

PLAn

Share

Reflect

Fig. 3.

Create

Engage

PLACERS Model.

56

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

The activities presented in the model were built on the seminal work of Vygotsky and later Wertsch (1991), who proposed themes that highlight the nature of the interdependence between individual and social processes in learning and development. One in particular is the connection between individual development and critical thinking. He posited that as learners participate in a variety of activities that are socially mediated, they are internalizing the effects of working together which leads them to acquire new strategies and knowledge. Tudge and Scrimsher (2003) additionally note, that these interactions should not be viewed as one-sided, but collaborative in that Vygotsky was interested in both what the learners bring to the interaction that support the acquisition of new knowledge and how the broader culture and setting shaped the interaction (Scott & Palincsar, 2013). It is for these reasons that the sociocultural theory is attributed to a diverse host of uses in all educational levels. The PLACERS model supports cooperative learning experiences whereby teachers bring existing knowledge to students and co-construct the learning before, during, and after the experiences. Herman (2013) noted that successful experiences should offer extended opportunities for discussion and problem solving in the context of shared activities, in which meaning and action are collaboratively constructed and negotiated. In other words, the process and the product are interrelated. Simply stated, inquiry-based learning should: (1) identify the abilities that are being developed (or that are in the process of developing) and (2) attempt to predict what the learner will do independently in the future (Scott & Palincsar, 2013).

The Service-Learning Project The organizational structure for the “Healthy Children-Healthy World” service-learning project included two professors from the School of Education and 13 students studying different disciplines (Nursing, Public Health, Child Development, Food and Nutrition, Elementary Education, and Psychology) who worked collaboratively to address the effects of food deserts and its impact on the healthy lifestyle choices of first graders at a local elementary school. Over 50 hours during the semester were devoted to learning about and understanding the issues. Simultaneously, students collaborated with the elementary school staff and administration to design an intervention to increase the healthy living activities of the students. Decidedly, the intervention was a week’s focus on healthy living in which

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

57

the CTHER Fellows taught a series of 20 lessons during the school day. The topics covered were, Smoking Prevention, Germ Busters, Stress Busters, and Healthy Eating. These topics were covered at the request of the school administration and teaching faculty, as well; each of them is aligned with the required North Carolina learning standards. The North Carolina Essential Standards for Health Education have five different sections, which include Mental and Emotional Health, Personal and Consumer Health, Interpersonal Communications and Relationships, Nutrition and Physical Activity, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs. Within each section are goals and objectives used as guidelines for educators in order to inform and teach students about the topics. Each lesson was developed through an interdisciplinary process to ensure that the activities and solutions offered multiple perspectives in an effort to garner successful impact. The CTHER Fellows offered the relevant content knowledge however, to ensure that the lessons were engaging, developmentally appropriate, and successfully incorporated the North Carolina Essential Standards for learning; it was necessary to collaborate with students in the teacher education program. For this component of the project, CTHER Fellows partnered with students who were enrolled in EDU 3180: Healthful Living Education in Elementary Schools. This course teaches future educators instructional planning and how to incorporate healthful living practices and physical movement into their classrooms. It also places an emphasis on diverse learners and learning styles in the classroom. The preservice teachers were named/ identified as “Education Buddies.” The education “buddies” provided instructional feedback to the CTHER Fellows, and co-designed the presentation of the lessons to support increased understanding of the material. Each group then demonstrated their activities and taught the “lessons” to each other during mock teaching sessions. The collaboration with the preservice education students supported the instructional design and planning of the lessons as well as provided the opportunity for all of the students to practice real world applications of “teaching” their content to adults and elementary students. During the implementation phase, the education faculty and the education “buddies” were available to provide additional support. This project was marked by four recommended components of successful service learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 2009): • Preparation: Multiple assigned and optional readings focused on the community issues and institutional barriers (access to health care, food deserts and food insecurity, bio-ethics, critical race theory). The faculty

58

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

and the students generated the selected literature and multimedia. Each student worked in a team of 3 4 and designed a lesson plan in their discipline and taught other students how to implement the lesson. • Action: Student teams taught 50 first-grade students, aged 6 7 at an urban elementary school located less than a half-mile from the college campus. The lessons were taught during the school day. The classroom teacher was present, but the students had full responsibility for implementation of the lessons. • Reflection: Students completed a series of journal reflections that allowed them to comment on personal, social, and content connections, new understandings, and/or challenging questions. Reflections were written using formal Qualitative Reflection Journals (QRJ) and also through the informal use of social media/facebook. The reflections were discussed during the daily debriefing groups that were held at the end of each day in the field. • Assessment: In an effort to assess the impact of the project, CTHER Fellows and the first-grade students both participated in pre and post surveys. A more in depth view of the topics and lessons is presented in Table 1.

The PLACERS Model in Action Plan the Experience Often, wanting to do something “new and different” and actually beginning something “new and different” can be very frustrating for some instructors. This may be the reason why many projects end at the planning stage. However, planning does not have to be tedious. In fact a huge factor in increasing students’ inquiry-based learning can stem from the planning component. While faculty can provide a guide and complete the very initial steps, it is through student inquiry during the planning stage that they develop the foundation for problem solving, decision-making, and understanding the content knowledge. Planning the Service-Learning Project Inquiry-based instruction supports the efforts of brainstorming as an authentic process for helping students to identify problems and work toward solutions (McComas, 2014). Effective inquiry is more than just asking questions and seeking the right answers, but seeking appropriate

Topic

Healthy Children

Healthy World Lesson Overview.

Objective

Smoking Prevention (Nursing/Public Health Content) 1. Identify the harmful effects of smoking Teaching effects of smoking and 2. Identify healthy and nonhealthy choices second-hand smoke and how it can 3. Identify the difference between a healthy lung and an harm their bodies in different ways unhealthy lung

Germ Busters (Nursing/Public Health Content) 1. Identify what germs are and how it causes illness Teaching the children the harmful 2. Learn and know the importance of hand washing and impact of germs and ways to dental hygiene to prevent sickness correctly eliminate germs from their bodies Healthy Eating (Nutrition/Public Health Content) Teaching the children how important it 1. Students will be able to sort foods into MyPlate is to eat healthy and the positive categories outcomes that come from making 2. Students will be able to identify a banana and a this choice strawberry 3. Students will be able to know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods and make a grocery list based on what is considered a healthy food versus unhealthy food

Lesson #1: Rhyming Poem and Coloring Activity Lesson #2: Brainstorming Lesson #3: Coloring Activity Lesson #4: Healthy Choices Lesson #5: Arts & Crafts Activity Healthy Lung/Unhealthy Lung Models Lesson #1: Hand Washing Lesson #2: Germinator Coloring page Lesson #3: Brushing Teeth Lesson #4: Happy/Sad Tooth

Lesson #1: My Plate Lesson #2: Make a Healthy Snack Lesson #3: Grocery list/Food Tasting

Lesson #1: Communicating Emotions Lesson #2: Emotional Eating Lesson #3: Physical Workout Plan Lesson #4: Combination Dance

59

Stress Busters (Psychology/Public Health Content) Teaching the children the difference 1. Understand what stress is as well as the two types of between good stress and bad stress, stress how it affects the body, and ways to 2. Identify emotions and learn to communicate them relieve stress effectively 3. Identify the characteristics of physical hunger versus emotional hunger to prevent emotional eating 4. Find strategies and activities that replace the need to eat and that help cope with stress, such as a physical workout plan

Activity

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

Table 1.

60

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

resolutions to questions and issues. The brainstorming process utilized in the PLACERS model was uniquely designed to engage students in cooperative learning by allowing them to create brainstorming webs that were created using the website Popplet (www.popplet.com). Popplets allow the creation of visual brainstorming that is both engaging and collaborative. Using Popplets in the planning stage for this project provided an outcome as an investigation of the barriers to healthy food consumption and its impact on the health education of school-aged children. By engaging the community and distinguishing their needs, the service-learning project brought together a multidisciplinary approach to address these issues; Education, Nursing, Public Health, Psychology, and Nutrition. Students (see Fig. 1) from each of these academic areas participated to develop interactive lessons for the school-aged children. In order to design the project, additional individual brainstorming graphics were created (Fig. 4) and the individual Popplets were then combined into one large group Popplet, which became the guide for the service-learning project (Fig. 5).

COURSE CONNECTION (THIS ACTIVITY WILL HELP ME LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING COURSE TOPICS/OBJECTIVES/GOALS)

NURS 20: Nursing Care for Children Initiate measures for promotion of proper growth and development and prevention of illness. PH 59: Analyzes information relevant to specific public health policy issues

AFTER THIS ACTIVITY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO: Questions for my Education Buddy? *Give two reasons why smoking is not a healthy behavior *Identify a healthy lung *Identify a damaged lung *Visualize/Draw themselves with healthy lungs

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITY I would like to design an activity that helps first grade students understand the disadvantages of unhealthy behaviors (smoking).

Essential Standard Link:

MATERIALS CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT: A model of a healthy/damaged lung WOULD LIKE TO HAVE: Copies of lungs in coloring book format

Fig. 4.

Technology Integration

Individual Brainstorming Popplet.

I NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT?

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

61

Group Popplet. Fig. 5.

62

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

Create the Motivation Creating a sense of motivation also creates a sense of accountability although sometimes there are obstacles that occur during the planning which can impede the success of a project. Because motivation can be an intrinsic process, many times it needs to be triggered (Marcum, 1999). The faculty sought to support motivation by involving community organizations who worked with the issues to speak to the students prior to project implementation. Two successful presentations were provided by a local community organization that sells food from a mobile truck in an effort to bring fresh fruit, produce, meat, and cheese to low-income neighborhoods that do not have available and affordable access. The owners of the organization offered the students a grass roots, personalized view of the issues of food deserts and insecurity in the community. This provided the interest for additional inquiry surrounding the impact of these social issues on the population. Additionally, the project design required that the fellows spent a minimum of 20 hours in the elementary school, working with the first graders, and talking to the teaching and administrative staff about their visions for the project. The inclusion of these components sought to create a sense of accountability. It is imperative that partnerships are created early in the process so that accountability forms the backbone for the project. Creating the Motivation in the Fellows The students (i.e., fellows) responsible for executing the week-long activities were not education majors which initially caused a temporary case of anxiety. This could have possibly decreased motivation. In order to assist the fellows with their motivation as well as create an inquiry-based learning experience, cooperative student partnerships were formed. Preservice teachers (i.e., education buddies) enrolled in the Elementary Methods Course Healthful Living Education in Elementary Schools were introduced to the initiative and fellows, and they were then placed into groups so that the preservice teachers could guide and motivate the fellows throughout their experience. The preservice teachers were informed that the fellows lacked training in the teaching field. While they were willing and excited to become their buddies, they quickly realized they had to not only prepare them to teach but also to find meaningful ways to motivate them and explain why the teaching and learning process is important. This meant that they would have to tap into their own learning to ensure success. This partnership ultimately created a trifold experience for the fellows, preservice teachers, and the first-grade students at the school. These experiences were further developed in the following two stages of the model.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

63

Engage in the Work Included in the North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process is a framework for 21st century Learning which indicates a partnership for 21st century outcomes to posses the skills, knowledge, and expertise students should master to succeed in work and life in the 21st century (North Carolina Department of Instruction [NCDPI], 2009). By doing so, 21st century interdisciplinary themes such as Global Awareness, Financial, Economic, Business and Entrepreneurial Literacy, Civic Literacy, and Health Literacy are interwoven into the curriculum with: learning and innovation skills; information, media, and technology skills; and life and career skills. While heavy emphasis was placed on Health Literacy during the “Healthy Children Healthy World” project, many of the other themes were integrated throughout. While Collins (2011) suggests engagement utilizes an authentic process for learning, Marcum (1999) concluded that it can also lead to enjoyment. An Engaging Performance: For the Fellows, By the Fellows The project began with engaging experiences such as providing the fellows and education buddies with opportunities to get to know each other on a personal and professional level instantly through various avenues. This was needed so that they could become comfortable with each other in order to work together. While the fellows were focused on providing engaging activities for the elementary students, it was also important to provide engaging activities for them to actively prepare and plan as well. The activities designed utilized technology as a means to further develop content knowledge and skills. Additionally, this assisted with efficiency and time management as time schedule conflicts are common problems during planning and executing service-learning projects. Technology played a key role in strengthening the cooperative student partnerships during this project. A Blackboardr (online class software management system) shell for faculty and all students involved was created and used for communication among groups. Introductions and welcomes between the fellows and pre-service teachers (buddies) were completed by video (YouTuber) and posted onto Blackboard. Continuously, the fellows planned their activities, sent ideas and plans to their education buddies; the pre-service teachers would then review and provide written and video feedback to the fellows. Mock teaching sessions were also videotaped and sent to the preservice teachers in which they then provided written and video feedback. The education buddies also worked very hard to ensure that the fellows understood the importance of integrating many of the 21st century learning

64

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

themes as they assisted in implementing the lesson plans. While they mainly focused on movement as a basis of the healthful living course, they were also able to provide insight into other strategies that would assist in keeping the school-aged children engaged and made sure to include this in their feedback (see Fig. 6). Throughout, the entire project both the fellows and the education buddies were able to tap into their own knowledge as well as search for answers which increased and provided their own authentic process of learning in their respective disciplines. Initially, while each individual student may have started at different knowledge levels within their fields, the attention to collaboration offered them opportunities to collectively gain more knowledge through an engaged inquiry process. Reflect on the Work Reflection can be defined many different ways; “careful consideration, meditation or even rumination.” However, it usually includes or is prompted by some level of uncertainty that needs to be resolved. The process of reflection involves a continuum, which is defined as a gradual transition from one condition to another without any abrupt changes (Daniels, Patterson, & Dunston, 2013). Moreover, reflection is a critical component to the success of service-learning projects and is supportive for students, teacher candidates, and site leadership because it allows all involved the ability to critically examine the experience of the project and learn from both positive and negative experiences. Although, critical reflection doesn’t occur by accident; it is essential for faculty to design structured reflection activities in order to ensure that critical reflection is an outcome of the service-learning experience. Structured reflection has been found to refine critical thinking skills that support being receptive to a variety of ideas and anticipating the significance of one’s own actions (G. Daniels, 2013; K. Daniels, 2013). Reflection, however, is more than “just thinking hard about what you do” (Bullough, 2011). The process should involve posing questions, searching for alternative answers, and seeking the deeper meaning of what learners do. To be useful, Daniels et al. (2013) offer that reflection should include students being guided to three specific foci: • The Technical Level: Reflection on what the student is doing (mostly observational). • The Contextual Level: Reflecting on the realization of cause-and-effect relationships.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

Fig. 6.

Feedback.

65

66

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

• The Critical Level: The broadest form of reflection and may focus on ideas such as social justice and the learners impact on larger systemic issues.

Reflecting on the Work: The Qualitative Reflection Journal (QRJ) Self-reflection has been a longtime key in transforming one’s actions for the better. Reflection allows for self-thought communication as well as a basis for faculty to assess students’ disposition, knowledge, engagement, and critical thinking skills. While there are several processes in which this can be done, a Qualitative Reflection Journalr (G. Daniels, 2013; K. Daniels, 2013) has been developed and used in this model. The QRJ is a tool that requires the students to move through the critical thinking process; from lower-levels to higher/critical levels. Although a written process, it is closely modeled after Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, and provides a continuum for the acquisition of skills (Huitt, 2011). Both the fellows and their education buddies reflected using the QRJ during the PLACERS model process (see Fig. 7). The QRJ was completed before, during, and after the service-learning project as a way to assess and evaluate not only what the students were learning (content) but at what level of depth they were processing the information (affective). As an assessment tool, it was clear that as the project progressed, students began to rely on the QRJ to highlight their knowledge (“I read about some of the things that I saw today in my Ed. Psych class,” or “I’m pretty sure that child was in the Concrete Operational stage.”). However, they also used it to share their thoughts and internal conflicts with certain situations (“It makes me sad to see that there are some children who do not eat healthy meals. When I become a dietician, I will make sure to work with the community to volunteer to change policies regarding food deserts.”). Lastly, some students even began displaying metacognition in which they commented on their thinking in the QRJ: “At first I thought that these QRJs were a joke, just something to get done, but they really make me think about the kids that we working with, myself and how my actions affect them and the community. Because of this project, I will really think before I speak and make sure that I am being culturally sensitive. It will be hard, but it is important if I want people to really listen to what I say.” Assessing the students by using the QRJ presented a window into how they created independent inquiry into certain situations, as well as, how they developed critical thinking skills overtime.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

67

QRJ Sample. Fig. 7.

68

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

(Continued ) Fig. 7.

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

Fig. 8.

69

NCCU News Article. Source: This figure is reproduced with the kind permission of North Carolina Central University Office of Public Relations.

70

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

Share and Celebrate the Work Often times, people do not think that the programs or activities they are doing are worth sharing with the community, administrators, or stakeholders. Specifically, educators may struggle with this because the work is viewed as “what I am supposed to be doing.” The truth of the matter is that this component is key to recruiting and getting others on board. Persons whom you have chosen to share with may begin to ask questions, offer assistance in a plethora of ways, or become intrinsically encouraged to begin their own transformational teaching. All of these opportunities whether intentional or unintentional, contribute to the transformation process and can easily get everyone involved, excited, and ready for the celebration! While some feel like they do not have the time to celebrate because they are simply satisfied with just “checking it off” and/or need to move on to the next project “to-do-item”; celebrating is essential and encouraged. Students/participants can complete a video or photo journal to view at the completion of the project, continuously post on social media outlets, and/or contact their local media outlets. Celebrating our Journey Some say pictures are worth a thousand words, however when the pictures and video were taken of the elementary students many would say they are worth a million (appropriate measures were taken to obtain required permissions and releases). Throughout the week, faculty and students took several pictures and the university’s professional photographer was also invited and contributed to the documentation of the week-long project. The students continuously posted pictures and their thoughts throughout the week onto a closed group Facebookr social media page to express their experiences. As a result, a news story was produced by the University Public Relations Department (Fig. 8). The story was placed on the university website, Facebookr, and other websites such as wn.com (world news) creating a congratulatory experience!

CONCLUSION The PLACERS model presents a structure for transforming and engaging instruction in which the student took the “place” at the forefront of the

Transforming and Extending Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

71

learning. It was developed as a framework to invigorate teaching and learning with sound theory. The designers utilized the model not only as a guide for their collaboration, but also as a means to extend inquiry-based and engaged teaching strategies. Implementing the PLACERS model in developing service-learning projects, supports transformational learning through increased opportunities for the inclusion of inquiry-based activities throughout many aspects of the process; beginning, middle, and end. The collaboration resulted in multiple opportunities for students to develop academic content knowledge and skills, along with increased exposure to technology and community engagement.

REFERENCES Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (2003). Face to face—Power to change: A conversation with Bernard M. Bass. Leadership in Action, 23(2), 9 11. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service-learning and curricular engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(147), 37 46. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2011). Ethical and moral matters in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 21 28. Collins, W. (2011). Authentic engagement for promoting a college-going culture. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 101 118. Daniels, G. (2013). A five-step model for “unconventional engagement”. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 6(1), 39 44. Daniels, K. (2013). Exploring the impact of critical reflection through the use of servicelearning and digital storytelling. Journal on School Educational Technology, 9(1). Daniels, K. N., Patterson, G. C., & Dunston, Y. L. (2013). The ultimate student teaching guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Evans, M. P. (2013). Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24(2), 123 133. Herman, B. C. (2013). Convergence of postman and Vygotsky perspectives regarding contemporary media’s impact on learning and teaching. In The nature of technology (pp. 293 328). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. In Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www. edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html [pdf]. Accessed on July 26, 2014. Kesten, A. (2012). The evaluation of community service-learning course in terms of prospective teachers’ and instructors’ opinions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2139 2148. Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

72

CHERESA GREENE-CLEMONS AND KISHA N. DANIELS

Marcum, J. (1999). Out with motivation, in with engagement. National Productivity Review, 18, (Autumn), 43 46. McComas, W. F. (2014). Inquiry instruction. In The language of science education (pp. 52 54). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. McKay, V. C., & Rozee, P. D. (2004). Characteristics of faculty who adopt community service learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 21 33. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5 12. Miner, J. (2005). Organizational behavior one: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe. North Carolina Department of Instruction. (2009). North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ncees/ instruments/teach-eval-manual.pdf Novak, J., & Murray, M. (2009). Enhancing the preparation of special educators through service learning: Evidence from two pre-service courses. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 32 44. Pribbenow, D. A. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching and learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 25 38. Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from http://www.education. com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/ Stenberg, K. (2010). Identity work as a tool for promoting the professional development of student teachers. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 331 346. Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207 228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolf, A. A., & Laurier, L. (2006). Inquiry, insight and civic engagement: Re-visioning the community-based service-learning project in pre-service literacy methods courses. Journal for Civic Commitment, 8. Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15 25. Wurr, A. J., & Hamilton, C. H. (2012). Leadership development in service-learning: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(2), 213 240.

THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE: CONTRIBUTING TO THE USE OF INQUIRY IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING AND LEARNING Tanya Chichekian and Bruce M. Shore ABSTRACT This chapter overviews the articulation of inquiry in the three International Baccalaureate (IB) levels, Primary Years (ages 3 12), Middle Years (11 16), and the Diploma Program (16 18) that is widely accepted by universities for matriculation. It reviews inquirybased instruction in the publicly available IB research literature. The IB advocates inquiry as its pedagogical approach. We identified empirical classroom research involving IB teachers or students from four databases; 35 reports matched inclusion criteria and 31 of these had appeared in gifted-education journals. The IB’s inquiry philosophy, interdisciplinary emphasis, and specific elements in the Diploma Program such as the Theory of Knowledge course, a program entitled Creativity, Action, and Service, and the Extended Essay, comprise qualities that should inform

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 73 97 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001006

73

74

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

higher education. There has been disproportionate attention to the planning part of inquiry (e.g., generating worthy questions and deciding how to answer them) versus enactment or reflection; this leaves room for other research input about enacting inquiry in university instruction that creates a cycle of creative engagement. Successful IB experiences, through some of the IB pedagogy and content, raised learners’ expectations about their higher education learning experiences. However, as one moves from the Primary Years through to the Diploma Program, students report increasing “teaching to the test” and content-coverage that constrain inquiry opportunities students value. The importance of providing detailed, supportive, step-by-step introductions to inquiry, and attending to the social and emotional correlates of the substantive learning, were highlighted.

OVERVIEW OF INQUIRY INSTRUCTION AS CONTEXT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE A growing body of research (e.g., see Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011) has provided teachers and learners with opportunities to enhance understanding by inquiring into authentic problems. Topics of student interest, as well as the investigation of authentic questions, foster the development of student initiative, expert-like reasoning, and skills that support inquiry (Shore, Chichekian, Syer, Aulls, & Frederiksen, 2012). One of the unique qualities of inquiry as an instructional practice is that the teacher’s role in a classroom extends far beyond management to one that facilitates and scaffolds student interactions, reasoning, and learning. Inquiry has been defined by the US National Research Council (NRC, 1996) as “a set of interrelated processes by which scientists and students pose questions about the natural world and investigate phenomena; in doing so, students acquire knowledge and develop a rich understanding of concepts, principles, models, and theories” (p. 214). This widely cited definition of inquiry learning and teaching is limited, however, to scientific inquiry; it does not take into account the nature of inquiry within other disciplines such as literature (IRA-NCTE, 1996), mathematics (NCTM, 2000), history (NCHS, 1996), or social studies (NCSS, 1994) in which students and teachers also engage in investigations about a wide variety of

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

75

phenomena. Inquiry-oriented instruction involves both teachers and learners co-constructing parts of the curriculum, asking questions that do not necessarily have known answers, planning and carrying out solutions, and sharing and reviewing results (Shore et al., 2012). This approach enables students to actively produce knowledge, and expands the students’ and teacher’s role beyond respectively receiving and conveying knowledge. In 2012 the NRC modified its definition, mostly by backing away from using the term “inquiry” because there were too many ways in which it was defined and the perceived challenges in making inquiry happen in instruction, however, it did not change the emphasis on the learning and teaching experiences that constitute inquiry. We are not convinced that the word or construct “inquiry” should be abandoned just because it is difficult or the word has many meanings. Success has many meanings, too. As noted later in this chapter, students who have experienced inquiry in the International Baccalaureate (IB), Advanced Placement (AP), gifted-education programs, or otherwise, make its accomplishment a point of special pride, even if some difficulties persist. Inquiry-based learning in any discipline involves identifying, collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating evidence for claims, but the data typically emerge from very different sources and the processes vary extensively. Although science education uses data collected through observations and experimentations, the US National Standards for History (NCHS, 1996) argued that students’ investigations should especially focus on becoming proficient at detecting biases in historical interpretations. Inquiry-based history lessons would typically include analysis of source documents and ways to understand past events as well as the analysis, comparison, and corroboration of sources in context (Ohn, 2013). Furthermore, the Standards for the English Language Arts (ELA) asserted that evaluating and interpreting the findings from various information sources was “one of the most vital skills that students can acquire” (IRANCTE, 1996, p. 28). Consequently, teaching ELA with inquiry should foster the critical consumption, production, and interpretation of written, visual, and audio texts through different means of communication such as speech or writing. Although inquiry-based reforms in schools in many countries differ in their content, direction, and pace (in addition to the US sources cited so far also see, as examples, Alberta Learning, 2004; European Commission, 2007; Quebec, 2004; UNESCO, 2008), these reforms also have commonalities such as accelerating improvements, raising standards of achievement, and challenging teachers’ existing practices. Inquiry begins with the

76

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

development and implementation of a plan to satisfy curiosity. Many models of inquiry instruction stress the cyclical pattern of this pedagogical approach asking a question, developing and implementing a plan, collecting data, evaluating evidence, drawing conclusions, reflecting on strengths and weaknesses of the plan, and engaging in a new sequence (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Shore, Aulls, & Delcourt, 2008). Such an inquiryinstruction cycle includes three phases: planning, enactment, and reflection (Shore et al., 2012). The planning phase of inquiry includes time and task organization, setting the task in context, and planning to solve the problem. The enactment phase addresses skills (e.g., collecting data) as well as self-monitoring strategies (e.g., applying existing knowledge to new concepts, awareness of how preconceptions affect learning), and reflection includes outcomes evaluation. Since 2000, there appears to have been a growing international consensus that inquiry is an effective approach to teaching and learning, when done well. Potential outcomes of inquiry have been shown to encourage the development of self-regulation and metacognitive strategies (e.g., organizing information, goal-setting, monitoring understanding, self-evaluating), to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, to promote curiosity and confidence, and ultimately to foster the motivation for autonomous learning (Llewellyn, 2002, 2005; Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, & Shore, 2012).

SELECTION OF LITERATURE We searched four databases that include international materials: ERIC, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and the IBO’s 5000-item open-access Education Research Database (IERD). Our search terms were “international baccalaureate” or “IB” in the title or abstract, plus learning, inquiry, instruction, or combinations thereof. We also searched back issues of IBO’s out-of-print quarterly IB Research Notes, and the reference lists of items in the final selection. McGill University’s library catalog was used to conduct a further book search. In total, 232 items that directly or indirectly addressed research focused on the IB’s core pedagogical approach inquiry-based teaching and learning were identified (after removing duplicates). Studies were retained based on the following criteria: • Peer-reviewed. • Dated 1980 onward.

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

77

• Mention of at least one of the three IB program levels. • Participants were students, teachers, administrators, or in combination. • Variables included IB curriculum design and implementation, instructional skills and methods, students’ and teachers’ perceptions and attitudes, learning environments, teachers’ and students’ role in the IB, the IB philosophy of education, or related historical development. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: • Comparative education items focused on multicultural studies, diversity in education, national issues, management studies, or globalization. • Focus on academic administration, admissions, enrollment, achievement test scores, policy making. • Online courses, educational technology, specific program evaluation, demographics, urban education, and sociology of education. We did not exclude studies with particular populations, such as gifted students, nor studies that simultaneously addressed AP or other enrichment options. Reflecting the paucity of the research literature regarding inquiry in the IB, 24 articles were retained from peer-reviewed journals, and nine others from the reference lists of previously retained articles. One book and one research report were also retained. Eleven dissertations and seven other books informed our search but were not included in the final 35 items; 18 of these 35 (identified by asterisks in the reference list) were explicitly cited in the abbreviated review within this chapter.

WHAT DOES RESEARCH SAY ABOUT THE ARTICULATION OF INQUIRY IN THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE? Inquiry has long been the avowed pedagogical approach by a select number of schools and programs including the IB. Because of its worldwide reach some 3,500 schools in 143 countries and popularity in many parts of North America as an enrichment program, the IB provides many teachers’ and learners’ first experience with explicit inquiry objectives, although many national curricula are becoming inquiry-focused. The IB offers a continuum of educational experiences beginning with the Primary Years Program (PYP, for ages 3 12), followed by the Middle Years

78

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

Program (MYP, ages 11 16), and the Diploma Program (DP, ages 16 19). There is also a new Career-Related Certificate that parallels the DP. One of the IB’s goals is to foster the development of students’ characteristics that appear in its “Learner Profile” (LP) (i.e., inquirers, knowledgeable, thinkers, communicators, principled, open-minded, caring, risk-takers, balanced, and reflective) (IBO, 2013). Values and attitudes such as appreciation, commitment, confidence, cooperation, creativity, curiosity, empathy, enthusiasm, independence, integrity, respect, and tolerance (IBO, 2000) are also engaged to develop the international-mindedness of IB students. The IBO (2000) stated that “these attitudes should be addressed consciously, professionally, and explicitly within the written curriculum” (p. 35). Meaningful experiences should promote these attitudes and students should learn how to demonstrate them. The word “Inquirers” appears first in the LP, and most if not all of the other profile qualities are actually part of inquiry. Evidence of inquiry in education should be found across the curriculum and at different levels of schooling. The common thread across the three IB levels is the relatively general, even vague, LP whose most relevant element is the core definition of IB learners as inquirers: Inquirers “develop their natural curiosity. They acquire the skills necessary to conduct inquiry and research and show independence in learning. They actively enjoy learning and this love of learning will be sustained throughout their lives” (IBO, 2013, p. 5). The IB PYP targets students aged 3 12 years old. The curriculum is not based on content or disciplinary knowledge, but is instead composed of six transdisciplinary themes (who we are, where we are in place and time, how we express ourselves, how the world works, how we organize ourselves, sharing the planet) surrounding six subject areas (language, social studies, arts, mathematics, science, and personal, social, and physical education). One PYP goal is to develop international students’ characteristics that appear in the LP: knowledgeable, principled, inquirers, communicators, open-minded, thinkers, risk-takers, balanced, reflective, and caring. These attitudes include appreciation, commitment, confidence, cooperation, creativity, curiosity, empathy, enthusiasm, independence, integrity, respect, and tolerance (IBO, 2000). The PYP curriculum cycle is expressed by “How best will we learn?,” “What do we want to learn?,” and “How will we know what we have learned?” The PYP emphasizes guided inquiry and student involvement. Themes are structured into six stages: central idea, teacher questions, activities, assessment, materials, and reflection; plus a section for studentinitiated inquiries. Assessment includes, but is not limited to, teacher and student rubrics, portfolios, peer and self-assessments, checklists, and

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

79

anecdotal notes. Under the teachers’ guidance, the PYP culminates with a collaborative grade-wide inquiry project, known as the PYP exhibition. The MYP addresses students aged 11 16. The more formal curriculum includes eight subject groups (language A the student’s best language, another modern language, humanities, sciences, mathematics, arts, technology, and physical education) connected by five types of interaction (approaches to learning, community service, health and social education, environments, and human ingenuity), and adds intercultural awareness and communication. Similar to the DP, the MYP culminates in an interestdriven personal project that may take the form of an essay, but is not limited to this format. The MYP introduces students to formal examinations to prepare them for the rigorous DP examinations should they continue in the IB sequence. Consequently, the MYP also faces inconsistencies in their intentions: Providing an inquiry-driven holistic education becomes less engaging for students who are beginning to rely more on acquisition of knowledge, credentials, and credits “rather than understanding, wrestling with ideas, and intellectual growth” (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008, p. 210). Students’ interests are less likely to be taken into account, thus students might be deterred from participating in the planning and construction of the curriculum and in the decision-making process that are key points to consider in inquiry-based teaching and learning. “Belief in the need for student exposure to the entire curriculum and constrained time limits led to one-size-fits all curriculum” (Hertberg-Davis, Callahan, & Kyburg, 2006, p. ix). The two-year DP is taken prior to entering university studies. It includes six IB subject groups language arts, second language, arts, individuals and societies, experimental sciences, and mathematics and computer science, as well as three innovative components that strengthen and support international understanding through the curriculum the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) course, a program entitled Creativity, Action, and Service (CAS), and the Extended Essay (EE). The TOK focuses on guiding students to examine the nature of evidence and the strength of their evidence-based judgments (Peterson, 1977). DP students are expected to apply this reflective thought process beyond the classroom (Anderson, 1994) to develop critical thinking and metacognitive skills that form a part of inquiry-based learning. The CAS requires students to commit a number of hours weekly to creative and aesthetic activities or to social service. The EE provides opportunity for sustained independent inquiry in a culminating project on research topics of personal interest within any subject area. This anticipates the activity university students undertake when they do a

80

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

major written assignment. At the same time, this is a very specific type of inquiry exercise that barely addresses the wide range of possible inquirybased experiences. IB research describes teachers’ and students’ knowledge, perceptions, and conceptualizations of IB expectations (Culross & Tarver, 2007; Kauffman, 2005; van Oord, 2007), as well as the flexibility of the curricula and instructional strategies to accommodate individual differences (Kyburg, Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2007). Specifically, the research has addressed the impact of the program on students’ academic, emotional (Taylor & Porath, 2006), and social life (Culross & Tarver, 2007), as well as the choices made between social acceptance and academic success (Foust, Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2008). For example, interviews of IB students addressed: (a) their perceptions regarding inquiry learning experiences (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006), in particular the development of writing and critical thinking skills (Taylor & Porath, 2006), (b) benefits from having been in an IB program (Wilkinson & Hayden, 2010), (c) the preparedness for postsecondary studies (Taylor & Porath, 2006), and (d) IB curriculum design and implementation. On the other hand, teachers described their perceptions of teaching in the IB (Culross & Tarver, 2007) and of knowledge, values, beliefs, and teacher preparation contributing to inquiry-teaching practices. Teachers also stressed challenges or conflicts of interest created by inquiry-teaching practices (Culross & Tarver, 2007; Twigg, 2010), as well as their roles in the implementation of inquiry-teaching practices in schools (Twigg, 2010).

Planning Given teachers’ concerns about student performance on IB examinations, topics related to planning such as teachers addressing their own and students’ needs and being flexible with time, students dividing the task into a coherent sequence of do-able steps, and students having different plans in advance to accomplish the task were examples of inquiry elements that were the focus in the IB research literature. Less emphasis in the IB research literature has been placed on topics related to the sharing of roles between teacher and student during the planning phase of inquiry as well as students’ enactment of inquiry tasks (Anderson, 1994; Culross & Tarver, 2007; Gazda-Grace, 2002; Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006; Kauffman, 2005; O’Boyle, 2009; Rufino, 2007; Taylor & Porath, 2006; Twigg, 2010; Vanderbrook, 2006). For example,

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

81

Hertberg-Davis et al. (2006) found that some IB teachers chose coursework or texts that appealed to diverse students whereas others did not modify the course content to meet diverse students’ needs, which eventually led frustrated students to leave IB programs. The IB teachers’ instructional methods were designed for an inclusive student population, but did not fully address the diverse needs of individual learners. Instead of teachers scaffolding or providing other forms of support to struggling students during class time, they only considered helping either on an individual basis as the need arose or after school. Additionally, most teachers’ goals were to teach only the content that would be tested on end-of-course exams. In the DP’s required EE, although students have the freedom to choose topics of personal interest, some studies provided evidence of teachers addressing their own needs and interests more than the students’. In a qualitative study investigating gifted secondary students’ perceptions about the curriculum, instruction, and environments within AP and IB courses, Hertberg-Davis and Callahan (2008) reported that most students were not critical of what they were learning or the way they were being taught. Students and teachers did not always share in decision-making despite the fact that they believed that AP and IB courses provided a greater level of academic challenge and more favorable learning environments than other existing high school courses. Although some IB teachers allocated more responsibility to students to drive the curriculum (Kauffman, 2005; O’Boyle, 2009), or offered learners the opportunity to discover what they wanted to learn about a particular unit (Twigg, 2010), most teachers perceived the IB as largely a one-size-fitsall rather than co-constructed and individually tailored curriculum. This perception did not act in favor of students from rural areas, students from low socio-economic backgrounds, and minority learners. For many of these students, disproving racial stereotypes, attending and graduating from college, and escaping an undesirable lifestyle acted as additional motivators for taking and succeeding in IB courses (Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006). Teachers’ views about stresses and challenges of teaching in an IB school, how the IB differed from teaching regular classes, and other characteristics related to the program revealed that they were addressing their own needs or interests by drawing upon their strengths, hence diminishing students’ participatory roles during curricular planning, a key feature of inquirybased pedagogy. Incoming students with weak writing, study- or time-management skills have not generally been remediated or given the opportunity to improve, and consequently fell behind other students (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan,

82

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

2008). IB teachers frequently noted that they felt rushed and overwhelmed due to the amount of content to cover in time for the IB examinations (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008) and suggested that they needed more time for planning (Twigg, 2010). One student remarked, “One thing I’ve noticed about IB … is how oriented they are in tests that we have to take … it seems like the teachers are always working to get us full of the knowledge that we need for the tests” (Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006, p. 51). As a result, students rarely challenged themselves in order to improve or broaden abilities such as risk-taking, divergent thinking, and developing potential (Vanderbrook, 2006). Students who did take part in the inquiry-planning process learned how to divide the task into a coherent sequence of doable steps: “Although they indicated the pace was hectic at times, they valued the breadth and depth of the curriculum, and the critical thinking, … that they honed and carried forward into postsecondary school and beyond” (Taylor & Porath, 2006, p. 155). On the other hand, expectations to extend inquiry beyond the classroom have not been not routinely demonstrated by IB teachers (van Oord, 2007) and the heavy focus on examination scores and memorizing content does not contribute to genuine learning; understanding the goal of the task and intellectual growth seemed no longer to be the purpose of taking IB courses in practice (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Vanderbrook, 2006). Different approaches were also reported regarding students working and interacting with their surroundings or environment, and understanding key concepts. Although some IB teachers recognized the dilemmas arising from students’ diverse and complex backgrounds (Kyburg et al., 2007) and dealt with it by promoting questioning skills and enhancing collaborative partnerships among students (Twigg, 2010), others did not make any provisions for academic diversity due to their beliefs that IB students were a homogeneous, high-ability group (Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006). The latter partly explains why some students have left IB programs: “The way IB courses were taught did not allow students to succeed, feel welcome, or learn in the ways that they liked to learn” (Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006, p. xi). Also, facilitating the understanding of new concepts using the students’ language (Twigg, 2010) contrasted with the heavy emphasis on knowledge acquisition tied to examination scores (HertbergDavis & Callahan, 2008). The Planning phase in inquiry was the most inclusive regarding the range of subjects addressed in IB research. This phase also contained the most variability regarding the way in which inquiry tasks were perceived. For example, Gazda-Grace (2002) commented about how some students

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

83

and teachers shared decision-making that IB students created and completed independent portfolio projects in their mathematics classes in consultation with the teacher. Conversely, Hertberg-Davis et al. (2006) observed that IB teachers first and foremost considered the material to be tested on the end-of-course exams, and the content included on the exams determined the content to be taught. Other key components in the Planning phase of inquiry such as making a concept map, web, or cluster, foreseeing possible outcomes of an activity, understanding instructions, describing one’s problem-solving strategies, having previous experience with similar activities, connecting old and new knowledge, setting aside preparation time, brainstorming ideas, making a plan, having different plans in advance to accomplish the task, having back up plans at the end should a project stall (Llewellyn, 2005; Shore et al., 2012) have not been addressed, but their absence from the IB research literature does not necessarily indicate that these are not happening in the classroom; it may just be that these were not the focus of those studies and so were not recorded.

Enactment and Reflection In the enactment phase of inquiry, one can observe many inquiry tasks in which students must be engaged if they are doing inquiry, such as asking questions, making suggestions, and offering hypotheses about outcomes to name a few. Most inquiry enactment tasks in the IB research literature were evident in students’ classroom actions and less so for teachers. For example, in a written survey, IB teachers reported students asking good questions, checking for comprehension, searching for answers independently, making predictions, providing reasons for those predictions, gathering information on abstract themes, moving around the room helping classmates, looking for evidence, and offering their own perspectives. On the other hand, students in the same study did not report their teachers providing sensitive feedback, positive reinforcement, or praise for persistence during an inquiry activity: “The teacher gave students no indication of whether they were correct or incorrect; she just acknowledged the statement and encouraged further testing” (Kauffman, 2005, p. 255). Students also shared their emotions and perceptions regarding their educational experience in the IB (Vanderbrook, 2006) and expressed their disappointment toward nonexisting peer-support systems such as study groups in which they could exchange feelings, ideas, and emotions.

84

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

Reflection during inquiry usually did not last very long and, therefore, only a handful of elements describe this phase such as explaining results, questioning the findings, discussing what has been learned compared to what was known before, evaluating the inquiry experience, and followingup the project with a new set of questions (Shore et al., 2012). Kauffman (2005), for example, observed how IB English teachers asked students to compare themselves to the characters in a text in order to contrast what had been learned to what was known before. A rush to cover content is likely at the expense of in-depth reflection that helps learners make meaning individually and in groups, and to value the knowledge gained as well as to practice intellectual and creative engagement with each other. Although the IB research literature supports claims about the presence of inquiry-based instruction, there are still many components of inquiry teaching and learning that remain unexplored. Very few studies in the published literature about the IB referred to classroom practices occasionally to the enactment of inquiry-based pedagogy and to a lack of information about how inquiry can be measured in classrooms or in schools. Studies mostly addressed general program impact and outcomes, assessment practices, and the curriculum continuum. Although several tasks specific to inquiry were mentioned, many remained untouched, namely those describing skills for strategy selection and application during selfregulation, notably planning, checking, monitoring, selecting, revising, and evaluating. Others, such as questioning one’s findings, describing one’s problem-solving strategies, and making graphic representations were also not reported in the IB research literature on inquiry-based teaching and learning. IB schools share common objectives, and the alignment of these purposes with student-learning outcomes depends on a better understanding of IB goals and how they influence classroom practice. Although we cannot make inferences about what is not reported in the IB research literature regarding evidence of inquiry pedagogy, routine items that occur or could occur in all classrooms (e.g., feeling free to use imagination, having different plans in advance to accomplish the task) are important to the larger inquiry picture. Theoretically, supporting a social-constructivist understanding of learning and teaching (Vygotsky, 1978) requires evidence about learning as well as teaching, and about planning, enactment, and reflection undertaken by both teachers and learners. For the IB to be fully validated as a platform on which an inquiry-based school can be built, the research literature needs to address a wider range of questions than have so far been posed (inquiry tasks in the Planning phase of inquiry engagement have

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

85

substantially outnumbered those in Enactment or Reflection). A possible barrier in sustaining inquiry as the pedagogical approach in the IB programs has been the increasing focus on “teaching to the test” (HertbergDavis & Callahan, 2008; Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006; Kauffman, 2005; Savin-Baden, 2003). This was apparent in the IB research literature, especially when topics related to transitions along the continuum from PYP to MYP to DP. The nature of the instruction and the relationships between students and teachers changed as the grade levels increased. This same obstacle is also evident in regular school curricula, often leading to misalignment between objectives and outcomes.

Challenges to Achieving the Inquiry-Related Goals in the International Baccalaureate The main stated objective of inquiry in the IB is to provide a “holistic education.” This curricular aim presents a host of challenges due to students’ misconceptions regarding the outcomes of completing an IB program. For example, perceptions that successful completion of the DP will assure admission to the best universities in the world (Carber & Reis, 2004; Culross & Tarver, 2007; Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Taylor & Porath, 2006; Vanderbrook, 2006) has created tensions in the achievement of this curricular goal (Tarc, 2009). One undesirable potential outcome of this curricular tension is the heavy, almost exclusive emphasis on academic achievement, namely scores on exams over genuine learning. This creates a misconception among students that the purpose of completing inquirybased courses is knowledge acquisition rather than co-construction of knowledge and intellectual growth (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008). The teacher’s concern to “cover” content is also reported by professors in higher education, especially in gateway or prerequisite courses (Hua & Shore, 2014). Another consequence related to the challenges of achieving the inquiry goals is the “backwash” effect. Teachers were observed to teach to the test (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Hertberg-Davis et al., 2006). The validation of their own teaching quality and effectiveness was attached to students’ examination scores (Mayer, 2008). Serving a broader set of goals, such as educating students to develop an inquisitive mindset along with the specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential to inquiry, is a challenging task. An inquiry-oriented teacher’s role involves more than engaging students in the inquiry process; it also involves other inquiry-related tasks in which teachers must help

86

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

students navigate the complexity of a partially or wholly self-directed consideration of a topic of interest by addressing specific skills and strategies such as making a plan, collecting data and evaluating evidence, explaining results, and discussing findings. Faced with the pressure of common, knowledge-based, external examinations, IB teachers and others in the same situation might experience difficulty modeling these specific skills needed for inquiry given the level of significance they attribute to students’ academic achievement on the examinations. Moreover, variations and inconsistencies in the use of inquiry and curricular choices take place within schools given that some schools, at least in North America, incorporate the IB PYP while simultaneously fulfilling other government-imposed mandates (Kauffman, 2005). Although these issues are not reflected solely in the IB curriculum, they still attract attention because the inquiry goals challenge teachers’ existing practices, resulting in periods of recalibration due to increasing workloads and changes in teachers’ identities, which are central to their motivation, self-efficacy, and job commitment.

INQUIRY FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE TO HIGHER EDUCATION Of the research literature we located about inquiry and the IB, 31 of the 35 studies turned out to be published in gifted-education journals such as Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, and The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. This was initially a surprise, but understandable, given that IB programs offer learning environments that allow for peer intellectual interaction and adhere to an accelerated or enriched curriculum many regard as appropriate for the gifted and talented (Poelzer & Feldhusen, 1997). May et al. (2013) also noted that there was a very strong selection bias in IB programs favoring high-achieving, middle- and upper-class, high-ability students. Although this may weaken the perceived outreach of IB programs, it does speak to their attraction to parents seeking programs for gifted students, both for the peer grouping and for the promise of inquiry-driven curriculum that is generally recommended as part of gifted programming (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2007). In addition, many IB schools conduct competitions for admission, even though the IB was not and is not designed as a “gifted-education” program per se. It originated as a program that would facilitate the recognized pre-university education and matriculation of

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

87

students whose families were posted to different countries around the world, regardless of ability, and many IB schools are neighborhood schools. On the other hand, some branches of higher education such as traditional research-oriented universities especially recruit these same highly successful or gifted students who have engaged in research or other creative learning or knowledge production. Inquiry is of course a major quality of the modern university. It is usually expressed among the institutional objectives to be a producer of knowledge, not just a conservatory or user of the wisdom of the ages. Engagement in the inquiry mission of universities is not universal, however. It includes most faculty members, and many but not all graduate students. Inquiry certainly includes graduate students who complete theses or dissertations, or original productions in the performing and fine arts. It is also built into a minority of undergraduate programs, for example, in honors and performing-arts disciplines. Elements are present in many courses and subjects in which students write major essays, term papers, or engage in projects. Service learning is also an increasingly popular addition to the curriculum in some universities, and this too is anticipated across levels of the IB as “Caring” in the PYP, community service in the MYP, and service in the DP. The Boyer Report (Boyer Commission, 1998) called for a substantial expansion of inquiry-related undergraduate experiences, but the first three years after its issue did not reveal much change in undergraduate instructional practices (Boyer Commission, 2001). The broad recommendations of the Boyer report included making research-based teaching the standard beginning with an inquiry-based first year of university, removing barriers to interdisciplinary studies, connecting communication skills and course content, and culminating degrees with a capstone project. The parallels with the IB (cf. the LP) are explicit. Our work in progress with a 20-year follow-up in one university department, however, suggests a small but visible move in the direction of a greater variety of inquiry opportunities for undergraduates, in some dimensions of inquiry such as enhancing the role of student-originated questions. Institutional change is, perhaps not surprisingly, slow. The major problems remain the perception that students need to be filled with knowledge before they can suitably inquire, and the pressure of examinations weakly aligned with inquiry goals imagine, for example, a 100-question multiple-choice examination following so many college courses. Prince, Felder, and Brent (2007) contended that there had been little measurable, empirical, demonstration of the positive benefits of bringing

88

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

research into university classrooms. Healey (2005), Elsen, Visser-Wijnveen, van der Rijst, and van Driel (2009), and Grant and Wakelin (2009) have proposed the need for a change in the understanding of the connection between inquiry and teaching (often called the research-teaching nexus) from being about content and products toward one that emphasizes processes and problems. Most studies that have examined the nexus have only looked for visible products, for example, course evaluations or joint publications with students. Manconi, Aulls, and Shore (2008) analyzed three 90-minute interviews over a year with six experienced inquiry-oriented teachers, two each from elementary, secondary, and university levels, plus two traditional teachers. All the inquiry-oriented instructors emphasized processes and strategies related to (a) providing students detailed structure, direction, and guidance at the beginning of their courses or subjects so they can gradually learn on their own, (b) engaging students in problem solving, (c) creating learning experiences in which students must think, observe, reflect, investigate, justify, verify, and write results and conclusions, (d) facilitating dialogue among students to facilitate their learning, and (e) providing extensive guidance and structure to support the students’ own inquiries. Neither of the traditional teachers made these points. Teachers who clearly conceptualized an inquiry approach to instruction were able to transfer their knowledge and expertise to their students who, in turn, better understood the expectations and requirements of engaging in the inquiry process. In higher education, inquiry-based curricula can engage students in learning experiences that integrate them in the knowledge-discovery and sharing processes. Emphasis on inquiry from the first year of undergraduate education would provide opportunities for students to engage with high-profile researchers, a characteristic of the quality of post-secondary education and universities in particular (Brew, 2003). A recent pair of reports explored the learning outcomes that university students attribute to having previously undertaken the International Baccalaureate DP Extended Essay (EE) in particular, in terms of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other aspects that might prepare them for university studies (Aulls & Lemay, 2013; Aulls & Pela´ez, 2013). The study compared students who had previous IB, particularly EE, experience, with those did not. Former IB students reported to a greater extent that the EE had improved their approach to learning in higher education by (a) instilling pride and a sense of achievement in completing the EE, (b) raising awareness of learning that occurred as a result of selecting and delving in depth into a particular topic, (c) preparing them to recognize challenges in designing, conducting, and reporting

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

89

various facets of the research process, and (d) increasing their level of confidence in research. Students also reported that there remained not enough opportunities to engage in research at university. Given their inquiry learning experiences through the EE, including self-regulation processes such as preparing and following an outline, past IB students more highly rated their ability to use self-regulation during the inquiry-learning process, and they were less likely to view learning primarily as memorization (Aulls & Lemay, 2013). Having completed an EE was also associated with students’ self-assessments of academic learning outcomes, including superior organization skills, reasoning, reading, and writing. These students’ expectations had been raised about what a satisfying learning situation could be as a result of their having been part of an IB and especially doing the capstone project, the EE. Their expectations were not met, however, when they matriculated to higher education. As first-year university students, they encountered research primarily through reading and writing about research, and occasionally through discussions, but rarely through actually having an opportunity to do research within their coursework (Aulls & Pela´ez, 2013). These results closely paralleled those summarized by Foust, HertbergDavis, and Callahan (2009) among secondary students, generally of high ability, who were at the time enrolled in either IB programs or AP courses. AP courses make college-level content available to secondary school students, and their completion can lead to advanced credits or standing at many universities. Like IB programs, AP courses are very popular among gifted students or as formal parts of gifted-education programs. The students also reported a sense of pride in having completed more challenging requirements, appreciation of the more congenial classroom atmosphere that included enhanced relationships among the students, and teachers according more responsibility and respect. These advantages were independent of schools and applied to both the IB and enriched education experiences. They suggested to us that these outcomes are indeed the key elements, and that the IB and AP are merely two vehicles, among many possible, that can bring inquiry to higher education. Foust et al. (2009) also pointed out some disadvantages reported by both IB and AP students, although these varied widely: heavier workload, related social and emotional pressure and draining, the perception of negative feelings on the part of students who were not in these programs (often described elsewhere as perceived e´litism), and stereotyping (perhaps, e.g., as “nerds”). Everyone works harder in university, and the campus itself may be a safer place for IB and other special-program graduates, but it is important to

90

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

remember that the IB is not just an academic experience. It is an intense social experience, and the impact is carried forward when students enter higher education.

WHAT INQUIRY IN THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE IMPLIES ABOUT INQUIRY IN HIGHER EDUCATION Our first conclusion might be a surprise to some. The major contribution of the IB to inquiry instruction in higher education is the set of expectations brought by the students who have had successful IB or similar experiences. These students are not content to be passive receivers of knowledge in college and university classes. They are used to participating in shaping the course of study, to engaging in active dialogue with the instructor and with each other, and in having their interests in the subject matter addressed more directly than the choices made from the course or subject menu each semester. If their pleasure or displeasure cannot be tapped directly in the instruction, they will let it be known in their courseevaluation survey responses, including their narrative comments. The IB has not demonstrated that it is a fully functional inquiry-based curriculum, but even when teaching-to-the-test has been exaggerated, the IB has provided its graduates a taste of what learners highly value. The IB appears to have attracted or created students who seek something different from the traditional college lecture, even the superb college lecture. The IB potentially creates interest and provides inquiry experience, but making inquiry happen successfully, especially in undergraduate education, requires more. Aulls and Shore (2008) referred to inquiry in education as a “curricular imperative” but like all fundamental change, it does not come about quickly or on a smooth trajectory. Beginning to do inquiry learning is a challenge for both instructors and students, and discipline-focused as well as general strategies are aided by clearly illustrated initial, small, progressive steps toward inquiry-based instruction such as independent projects, meaningful contributions to lab work, or other activities. The IB’s engagement with inquiry, from its successes to the ways in which it is a work in progress, has highlighted a number of practices that instructors and program coordinators in higher education can consider in the context of improving learning and instruction. Here are some principal examples.

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

91

• Avoid teaching to the test exclusively in terms of pure content mastery. This can be approached by not having 100% final exams. Wait for the course or subject to evolve during the semester before setting questions that address common knowledge all students should have, but also work with instructional-improvement unit staff or departmental colleagues to include evaluation value for the individual knowledge students develop. • Ensure that the content that needs to be “covered” does not absorb 100% of the teaching agenda. Students can master a lot of content on their own when given a chance to explore related topics in depth. • Students learn more and better when they can engage in active dialogue for at least some of the time in class, with the instructor, and especially amongst each other. As simple a device as pausing for small-group or pairwise conversation on new concepts with some reporting back or writing down thoughts can help. In this age of instant communications, classes can use such technology to post to a class blog, create wikis, or otherwise share their developing understanding without taking large chunks out of class time. Encourage the social experience of inquiry while it is happening (e.g., though dialogue) and in communication (e.g., through miniconference types of presentations or short oral reports with student discussants). • Evaluate the processes of creating and evaluating knowledge in the discipline, not only the organized final knowledge. This promotes continuing learning in the discipline. • Even in year one, ensure that students actually do some interest-driven inquiry in the subject, not just hear, read, and write about it. Their assignments should include communicating their new understandings. • Explicitly teach students how new knowledge is created in the discipline and between the discipline and other subjects. How does a scholar in the field know when she or he is on a good or poor trajectory before getting to the end of the study? How do you recognize a new discovery in the field? In your field, what constitute the kinds of evidence that are the building blocks of new understanding, and what are not? Go beyond the conclusions of past research to share the thinking behind the conclusions of examples used, and give students opportunities in class and assignments to identify the evidence in published work and to apply criteria for evaluating it. • Reach beyond planning small studies and help students through the steps (scaffolding) of actually conducting or enacting the inquiry, and communicating and reflecting upon the outcomes.

92

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

• When a choice is possible, favor depth over breadth. Help students make connections between the content of the present course or subject with other knowledge. • Take special care not to create an impossible workload for students. This is partly achieved by carefully structuring independent projects including term papers or their equivalent with very clear guidelines for the steps to be undertaken, and indications about the scope of the efforts. Students are prone to adding to their own woes when they are intensely interested in a topic and could obsess, simply take too long, or be too ambitious. Instructors or teaching assistants need to help them monitor the scope of their efforts. Asking students to submit proposals, outlines, sample annotated references, along the way to a final product, can help. These can be required but not necessarily graded this will allow monitoring and suggestions to progress more easily, quickly, and effectively. • Be a risk-taker. Instructors in higher education are not normally trained as pedagogues; their strength comes from their subject expertise. This implies that moving toward inquiry instruction is a large step outside their comfort zone of lecturing, working through problems, or reviewing a canon of cases, for example. However, as higher education academics are well aware in their own work, creating new knowledge in any discipline requires some intellectual risk-taking. New discoveries are as much being open to surprises as confirming hypotheses. Student inquirers need to step out of their comfort zones, too, but they will not dare to do so if they do not perceive the instructor as supportive and not punitive in the face of such actions. A very effective way for an instructor to indicate such support is to do it himself or herself, to be open about trying to teach in ways that are less familiar, in handing some control to students to guide the agenda even at the risk that the instructor will not “cover” some topic or another, and the students will need to take some of that responsibility. • Set building confidence as a learner as a goal along with mastery of the subject and its ways of knowing. This is aided by patience, providing sensitive and positive feedback, supporting student persistence on inquiry tasks, being attentive to diversity in learning, personal, and social histories of students, that is, differences that will cause them to respond differently both intellectually and emotionally to new learning experiences. An extreme example is well known to anatomy instructors, namely, students’ first encounter with a cadaver and a scalpel. This is not so different from some students, due to cultural expectations, being expected to engage in a dialectical dialogue with an instructor, or even

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

93

another student. Learning how to deal with the emotions of a learning situation, whether related to the content or the instructional activity, requires sensitivity on the part of the instructor, and building mutual trust. • Anticipate change, exchange, and diversification of roles. The instructor is not the only source of knowledge. The students can participate in constructing and evaluating new knowledge, including each others’. Instructors add to their subject-matter expertise a willingness to guide the students’ emotional responses to new knowledge and new roles. Look forward to jointly identifying topics to be studied, ways to examine some of them, and even how to evaluate student progress and ultimate success in learning within the limitations of the semester or perhaps beyond. Students have no doubt about who is ultimately the judge of their performance, but being open to sharing these roles facilitates their entry into the role of being a knowledge evaluator and producer, as well as consumer. Role diversification is a keystone of inquiry. All of the above suggestions are reflected to a lesser or greater extent in the experiences that have been empirically studied, so far, in the literature on the IB as a platform for inquiry-based instruction. Some reflect the success of the IB, and some reflect the areas open for further development. These suggestions are also grounded in other cited scholarships on inquirybased teaching and learning. Endorsing these steps does not imply that inquiry is easy for learners or teachers. Committing to, implementing, and sustaining inquiry teaching or learning are difficult, and it should not be assumed that the instructor or the student merely turns the switch. Taking one of these ideas at a time would be a very defensible initiative.

NOTE * The 18 items followed by an asterisk were among the 35 identified in the systematic literature search.

REFERENCES Alberta Learning. (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning. Edmonton, AB: Author. Anderson, T. (1994). The International Baccalaureate model of content-based art education. Art Education, 47(2), 19 24.

94

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

Aulls, M. W., & Lemay, D. (2013). Exploring the learning benefits and outcomes of the IB extended essay in preparing students for university studies in Canada. Phase I research report to the IBO. Montreal, Quebec: Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/research/policy/ programmevalidation/diploma/documents/McGillFullReportPhase1FINAL.pdf Aulls, M. W., & Pela´ez, S. (2013). Exploring the Learning Benefits and Outcomes of the IB Extended Essay in Preparing Students for University Studies in Canada: Student Perceptions of the Impact of the Diploma Programme and the Extended Essay on the Academic Demands of First Year in University. Phase 2 Research Report to the IBO. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/research/policy/programmevalidation/diploma/ documents/McGillFullReportPhase2FINAL.pdf Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. I): The conceptual foundations for research as a curricular imperative. New York, NY: Routledge. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. The State University of New York at Stony Brook. Retrieved from http://naples.cc.sunysb. edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/ Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (2001). Reinventing undergraduate education: Three years after the Boyer report. Retrieved from http://www.sunysb.edu/pres/0210066-Boyer%20Report%20Final.pdf Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquirybased teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 3 18. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056571 Carber, S., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Commonalities in IB practice and the schoolwide enrichment model. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 339 359.* Culross, R. R., & Tarver, E. T. (2007). Teacher and student perceptions of the International Baccalaureate program. Journal of School Choice, 1(4), 53 62.* Elsen, M., Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., van der Rijst, R. M., & van Driel, J. H. (2009). How to strengthen the connection between research and teaching in undergraduate university education. Higher Education Quarterly, 63, 64 85. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate L Science, Economy and Society. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/ pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf Foust, R. C., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). “Having it all” at sleep’s expense: The forced choice of participants in advanced placement courses and International Baccalaureate programs. Roeper Review, 30, 121 129. doi:10.1080/02783190801955293.* Foust, R. C., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2009). Students’ perceptions of the nonacademic advantages and disadvantages of participation in advanced placement courses and International Baccalaureate programs. Adolescence, 44, 289 312.* Gazda-Grace, P. (2002). Psst … have you heard about the International Baccalaureate program? Clearing House, 76, 84 87.* Grant, K., & Wakelin, S. J. (2009). Re-conceptualising the concept of a nexus? A survey of 12 Scottish IS/IM academics’ perceptions of a nexus between teaching, research, scholarship and consultancy. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 133 146. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183 201.

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

95

Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of advanced placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199 216.* Hertberg-Davis, H., Callahan, C. M., & Kyburg, R. M. (2006). Advanced placement and International Baccalaureate programs: A “fit” for gifted learners? Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.* Hua, O., & Shore, B. M. (2014). Chemistry professors’ descriptions of the impact of research engagement on teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 33, 298 311. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832158 IBO International Baccalaureate Organization. (2000). Making the PYP happen: A curriculum framework for international primary education. Retrieved from http://www.itari.in/ categories/PYP/IBOPYP.pdf IBO International Baccalaureate Organization. (2013). The learner profile. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/programmes/profile/ and http://www.ibo.org/myib/digitaltoolkit/ files/pdfs/learner-profile-en.pdf IRA-NCTE International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author. Kauffman, N. (2005). Variations on a theme: Implementation of the International Baccalaureate primary years programme. Journal of Research in International Education, 4, 243 261.* Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry: Science learning and teaching (pp. 283 315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press. Kyburg, R., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2007). advanced placement and International Baccalaureate programs: Optimal learning environments for talented minority students? Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 172 215.* Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Manconi, L., Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Teachers’ use and understanding of strategy in inquiry instruction. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education (Vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 247 270). New York, NY: Routledge. May, H., Rodriguez, A., Sirinides, P. M., Perna, L. W., Yee, A., & Ransom, T. (2013). Apples and oranges: Comparing the backgrounds and academic trajectories of International Baccalaureate (IB) students to a matched comparison group. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education and the University of Delaware Center for Research in Education and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/1486_cpreibapplesoranges.pdf Mayer, A. (2008). Expanding opportunities for high academic achievement: An International Baccalaureate program in an urban high school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 202 235.* NCHS National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). History standards. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

96 NCSS

TANYA CHICHEKIAN AND BRUCE M. SHORE

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Alexandria, VA: Author. NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. NRC National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards (7th ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NRC National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. O’Boyle, E. (2009). Whispers from within: Students’ perceptions of the first year of the International Baccalaureate middle years programme in an international school. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(1), 30 56. Ohn, J. D. (2013). Constructing the past: Assessment of elementary preservice teachers’ perception about history. The Social Studies, 104, 15 22. Peterson, A. D. C. (1977). The program of the International Baccalaureate. The Journal of General Education, 28, 277 282. Poelzer, G. H., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). The International Baccalaureate: A program for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review, 19, 168 171.* Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 283 294. Quebec (Ministe`re de l’E´ducation du Que´bec). (2004). Que´bec education program: Secondary school education, cycle one. Que´bec, QC: Author. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Rufino, V. J. (2007). Understanding the music curriculum in the International Baccalaureate program. Music Educators Journal, 9(4), 48 53.* Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: A literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 5 31. doi:10.1177/1932202X11429860 Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Maidenhead: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Routledge. Shore, B. M., Chichekian, T., Syer, C. A., Aulls, M. W., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2012). Planning, enactment, and reflection in inquiry-based learning: Validating the McGill strategic demands of inquiry questionnaire. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 315 337. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9301-4 Tarc, P. (2009). Global dreams, enduring tensions. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Taylor, M. L., & Porath, M. (2006). Reflections on the International Baccalaureate program: Graduates’ perspectives. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(5), 149 158.* Twigg, V. V. (2010). Teachers’ practices, values and beliefs for successful inquiry-based teaching in the International Baccalaureate primary years programme. Journal of Research in International Education, 9, 40 65.* UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers: Competency standards modules. Paris: Author.

International Baccalaureate, Inquiry, Higher Education

97

van Oord, L. (2007). To westernize the nations? An analysis of the International Baccalaureate’s philosophy of education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 375 390.* Vanderbrook, C. M. (2006). Intellectually gifted females and their perspectives of lived experience in the AP and IB programs. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(3), 133 148.* Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilkinson, V., & Hayden, M. (2010). The International Baccalaureate diploma and student attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in International Education, 9, 85 96.* Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157 1186. doi:10.3102/0002831211419491

PART II PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES

REFRAMING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND CURRICULUM THE PHENOMENON OF ‘HYBRIDISATION’ IN IBL David Leat, Ulrike Thomas and Anna Reid ABSTRACT In England there are very strong pressures in schools to meet government targets for public examination results. Thus assessment is very ‘high stakes’ as principals and class teachers can lose their jobs if these targets aren’t met. In such a climate many teachers feel that innovation, such as inquiry-based learning involves taking a considerable risk. As a result teachers in England often enact a hybridised form of inquiry in order to manage the risk and this chapter explores three cases of schools in north east England in which hybridisation has occurred. We use Basil Bernstein’s concept of ‘framing’ to analyse the effect of inquiry-based learning on the relationship between the curriculum, teachers and students in these schools. Inquiry, acts as a disruption to the normal ‘convergent’ pedagogy with many positive outcomes for teachers and students

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 101 119 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001007

101

102

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

but both feel the constraint of the demands of the examination system. Although the agency, or capacity for action, of teachers is increased through exploring inquiry approaches, we conclude that for inquiry to develop further there is a need for a stronger local ‘ecology’ to support teachers and schools in their efforts to innovate. We describe the contribution of Newcastle University to such an ecology.

INTRODUCTION Context is important for understanding the progress of and prospects for a pedagogical and/or curriculum innovation. In England in particular, and in the United Kingdom generally, there is strong pressure on schools to meet externally set targets for the number of pupils achieving certain grades or levels in public examinations, at ages 11, 16 and 18. As these exams are very ‘high stakes’, secondary schools regularly test students for progress towards these targets, for if schools fall short there are significant levels of ‘collateral damage’ (Berliner, 2011) including the dismissal of principals and classroom teachers. The agent of much of this threat is the national school inspection system the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). Ofsted inspectors use an observation framework for grading observed teaching Inadequate, Requires Improvement, Good and Outstanding. As a consequence of schools’ internal monitoring using this framework, all teachers are observed and graded using these labels and often institutionally tagged accordingly, that is as outstanding, good, etc. Although the Ofsted framework incorporates many features of constructivist approaches, they tend to be interpreted relatively conservatively. The overriding point is that there are strong normative pressures in the direction of safer, relatively closed teaching approaches, in which linear progress towards targets can be readily measured. The Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] (2014) tests are increasing the sense of competition and this pressure is also commonly translated to pupils. As one primary teacher interviewee in Webb, Vulliamy, Sarja, Hamalainen, and Poikonen (2009, p. 417) expressed it: ‘The head is under pressure to perform, she puts pressure on us, we put pressure on the children and then everyone is just under immense pressure and stress’. In such circumstances curriculum imagination and experimentation are not widely practised and there is limited appetite for learning outcomes beyond those measured by the standardised tests. This does not provide a

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

103

promising seedbed for inquiry-based approaches. Despite the importance of this context, inquiry and other more innovative approaches such as thinking skills and project-based learning do however continue to attract advocates. Innovative pedagogies, generally, are appealing as an antidote to the normative curriculum, and provide an approach that resonates with the social constructivist values of some teachers. In this chapter we explore through three projects, how the constraints imposed by the national policies on curriculum and assessment in England have resulted in hybrid forms of IBL, in which some characteristics of IBL are diluted or missing. However we also show that even in this hybridisation there are some fundamental changes, or reframing, to relationships between teachers, students and the curriculum. It is difficult to classify pedagogic approaches, as there are so many dimensions of variation, not least in IBL (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010), but a very useful framework for analysing IBL originates in research on assessment by Torrance and Pryor in England (1998). They distinguished between convergent and divergent assessment modes, accepting that both are valuable and necessary, when fit for purpose. The value of the framework lies in the breadth of dimensions they use (see Table 1), which helps to convey, when applied to teaching, the fundamental differences between pedagogies that can be experienced by students. This ranges from the type of objectives that might be set through to the relationship of the learner to the curriculum and thus to ontological considerations. All the characteristics attributed to the divergent mode in Table 1 we would relate to IBL and although this chapter is focused on how schools have understood and implemented IBL, it is pertinent to clarify how we present inquiry in our university programmes. At a practical level we highlight in line with Torrance and Pryor: • The centrality of student curiosity and importance of students generating questions and problems to tackle, even where guided by the teacher; • The importance of working collaboratively and engaging in dialogue; • Authentic work geared where possible to a product and an audience; • The value of contingent teaching and learning through responding to the outcomes and questions that develop during the course of an inquiry. At a deeper level however we stress the ontological and epistemological distinctiveness of IBL, which can give encouragement to school students that they stand in an open relationship to the curriculum, so that it is legitimate for them to construct their own understanding of and stance towards some domains.

104

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

Table 1.

Convergent and Divergent Formative Pedagogy.

Convergent Pedagogy Precise planning by the teacher, based on set learning objectives and an intention to stick to the plan Closed or pseudo-open teacher questioning and tasks Authoritative, judgmental or quantitative feedback, exclusively from the teacher, focussed on summative judgement of performance and the successful completion of the task Conforming to either a behaviourist or a constructivist view of education An interaction usually embedded within an Initiation Response Feedback (IRF) sequence The learner is subservient to the curriculum

Divergent Pedagogy Flexible or complex planning that incorporates alternatives, permits contingency and ‘follows’ learning to some degree Primarily open tasks with questioning by teachers and directed at ‘helping’ rather than testing Provisional or provocative feedback or critique, from the teacher or peers, aimed at prompting further engagement from the learners with a view to constructing understanding or competence Conforming to a socio-cultural view of education with an acknowledgement of the importance of the context Part of an on-going dialogue between and amongst learners and teachers where learners initiate as well as respond, ask questions as well reply The learner plays a role in constructing the curriculum

Source: Adapted from Torrance and Pryor (1998, p. 193).

One of the pivotal differences, between convergent and divergent approaches is classroom dialogue. In most classrooms talk patterns are entrenched, usually following some variant of the IRF pattern (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), in which the teacher initiates (I) often through a closed or pseudo-open question, the pupil responds (R) usually briefly, without much elaboration and finally the teacher evaluates and provides feedback (F) thus keeping a tight rein on the direction of the lesson. Students do not have much say. Many teachers find it very challenging to break away from the IRF pattern of talk, not just because of fielding student questions but because the shift signifies a more reactive and responsive mode of teaching which is far less predictable, and, as indicated above, ontologically distinct. Given the context in England, it should be appreciated therefore that when an individual teacher, a group or indeed a whole school decides to explore IBL approaches they are destabilising a whole curriculum ecology and running counter to the dominant discourse. By dominant discourse we mean not just the use of language but a world view, underpinned by a range of

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

105

assumptions and deployment of power, which currently privileges convergent teaching. Saninno’s (2008) sees the dominant world view or ‘activity’ as ‘regular’ teaching and curriculum, which through the legitimisation afforded by power, readily suppresses curriculum innovation.

BERNSTEIN’S CONCEPTS OF CLASSIFICATION AND FRAMING: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK We have implied that we take a socio-cultural view of learning and we will elaborate on this through reference to the work of Basil Bernstein. Bernstein was a sociologist whose life’s work in educational research focused on understanding and explaining why working class students did so poorly in Britain’s schools (Bernstein, 1975). He developed a range of powerful concepts to explain educational disparities and the effects of different curricular models. These concepts include classification and framing and they extend our understanding of convergent and divergent pedagogy. Classification refers to the strength of boundaries between categories such as school subjects or groups of teachers. Strong classification in the curriculum equates to strongly demarcated subjects with little attempt at integration. Weak classification consequently implies that subjects meld as they are drawn upon as part of problem solving, topics or inquiries. Framing relates to the social rules that set out how different parties are expected to behave in learning contexts. Strong framing sees teachers in control and making all decisions as to the pace and content of learning and being the arbiters of knowledge. Weak framing provides a stark contrast, whereby there is a more egalitarian relationship and students have a considerable degree of autonomy in the direction and focus of learning. Weak framing is not a pejorative term; it represents learning contexts where intrinsic motivation is given freer rein and there is a more equal relationship between teachers and students and there is greater contingency in teachers’ planning as would be anticipated in IBL. When Bernstein developed his concept of framing during the 1970s it was at a time when he perceived a shift was taking place in the English education system as the country moved closer to the 21st century. This anticipated shift would see a move away from a curriculum that was subject-bounded and maintained by hierarchical relationships to one that was integrated, where breadth was emphasised and where the relationships between teachers and students would be more equal. Thus IBL would be

106

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

entirely in line with the changes that he expected. In his discussion of the predicted shift, Bernstein astutely recognised that it would have a major impact (both positive and negative) not only on what was taught (i.e. subject content) but also on the traditional patterns of authority and on the concepts of order and control (1975, p. 83). These in turn would impact on self-regulation, relationships (p. 83) and identity (p. 104). Although his vision did not come to pass, the analysis provides a valuable lens through which we can begin to understand the triumphs and tensions that occur in the classroom when teachers undertake IBL against a background of a dominant discourse favouring more direct, convergent teaching.

IBL IN ACTION

A HYBRIDISED CURRICULUM

In an unfettered model of IBL, the inquiry would be driven and guided by an inquiry question, often where there is no right answer. In ideal circumstances students might be involved in formulating the question or questions. The inquiry might cross subject boundaries and allow students to follow their ideas and interests developing ‘ways of knowing’ and not just ‘states of knowledge’ (Bernstein, 1975, p. 83). The reality in the classroom, however, is that as a result of the dominant activity (Saninno, 2008), teachers who value IBL are rarely able to pursue these purest goals; instead implementing lessons that contain only some of the characteristics of IBL in effect a ‘hybrid’ (Saninno, 2008, p. 337). Brief outlines of the projects from which the data in this chapter is drawn will now follow. In each case the projects demonstrate the hybridisation of IBL in practice, revealing that despite the fact that the teachers felt the need to maintain control of the subject content and learning goals of a lesson, they were happy for the framing to be weakened and for a transfer in agency from teacher to student to take place. However while the surface features, such as the place of curiosity and teaching contingently, are honoured to some degree, teachers have found it extremely difficult to embrace a more social constructivist view of the curriculum.

Skype Seniors Research Project Sugata Mitra has blazed a trail with his ideas about Hole in the Wall Computers and Skype Grannies (https://www.theschoolinthecloud.org/). In

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

107

North East England the Skype Grannies idea was adapted by the Research Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT), Newcastle University, into a research project called ‘Skype Seniors’. The seniors recruited by the project team were of both sexes, some retired, but others studying for undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. Each had a range of interests and work/life experiences that they were keen to share with young people. The aim of the project was to explore whether introducing these new voices into the classroom could shape curriculum and pedagogy in a broadly inquiry direction. Seven teachers from six schools took part in the project, each teaching different age ranges and working within different subject areas. Their response to the project shows the hybridisation of IBL in action, for although each teacher allowed the students and mediators to take control in both the preparation and implementation of the Skype sessions, each determined the subject content and objectives (see Table 2). The following example, from the project, provides an example of this hybridised IBL in action. Angela is a German teacher in a large secondary school. She decided to take part in the Skype Seniors project in order to develop the conversational skills of one of her German classes and also to help inspire them to write an essay that formed part of their exam coursework. As a self-confessed ‘control freak’ in the classroom, she also wanted to develop the students’ independence, which she hoped would encourage some usually passive students to engage more with the language and their peers. Six native German speakers (mediators) were recruited to Skype with her students and once a week, for a period of four weeks, the German mediators took part in conversation sessions with small groups of four. Although Angela had specified a topic (media; which encompassed film, TV, music, the internet and mobile phones) and the end product (a 200word essay in German for the General Certificate of Secondary Education or GCSE, a public examination taken at 16), it was the students and mediators who determined the content and focus of the sessions. The shape of the inquiry was thus a hybrid. In a typical 45-minute lesson, the first half was spent with the students working in groups deciding what they would ask the mediators and looking up appropriate vocabulary. During the second half of the lesson the mediators were called over Skype and a 20 25 minute discussion ensued. At the end of the four weeks the students wrote their essays and the response of the students to writing these surprised even the teacher: The boys are engaged and I now have 200 words GCSE essays from the class week early. It’s [Skype seniors] been a really powerful tool to get the children to this level …

one

108

Table 2. School Type

Details of Schools Involved in the Skype Seniors Project. Number of Students Taking Part

Age of Students Taking Part

Number of Mediators

Religious Education: rites of passage German (media coursework)

16 16

11/12 13/14

10 6

School 2 State secondary school ages: 11 18

Project-based learning Maths (algebra)

10 2

11/12 16

5 3

School 3 State primary school ages: 5 11

Book group (Tom’s Midnight Garden)

8

8/9

School 4 State primary school ages: 5 11

Chocolate topic: Cocoa growing

5

9 11

1

School 5 State secondary school ages: 11 18

Health and social care: The ageing process

5

17

2

School 6 State secondary school ages: 11 18

History: the role of influential women

6

13/14

1

School 1 State secondary school ages: 11 16

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

Subject Area/Objectives

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

109

Experimental Week The second project is drawn from a single school that was working with CfLaT prior to a move into a new building (Woolner, Clark, Laing, Thomas, & Tiplady, 2012). This new building had been specifically designed by the school principal to allow cross-curricular projects and inquiries to take place. As well as creating a bespoke open space to encourage collaborative teaching and learning, five new ‘faculties’ were also being created: Communication (English and Modern Foreign Languages), Realisation (ICT, Design & Technology and Business), Exploration (Geography, History and Religious Education), Discovery (Maths and Science) and Expression (Art, Drama, Music and Physical Education). Teachers would be expected to work together both within their faculties and also across faculties, adopting an integrated/cross-curricular approach through the teaching of themes. An ‘Experimental Week’ was arranged which would enable the teachers and students to experience the new way of working with the role of the university to both support and evaluate this process. Experimental Week took place in the school hall with seventy 12 13year-old students and a selection of teachers from each school faculty. Each faculty planned one day of lessons/activities/enquiries using the large space in the hall but with additional access to the ICT suite and design and technology workshops. The cross-curricular focus for the week was a local historic landmark (a bridge). The following example from the day planned by the Discovery faculty will exemplify a typical day of the inquiry. The teachers from the faculty met twice in order to plan their inquiry and created a brief which asked the students to design a bridge which would span a space of 1 metre. When the students arrived in the morning they met as a large group and were told the plan for the day. The large group was then divided into two, with half taught by the two maths teachers and half by the science teachers. The aim was to use the morning to provide them with the knowledge base to complete the brief in the afternoon. The maths teachers taught the students about scale drawings and the science teachers explored the strength of different shapes. The groups swapped half way through the morning. In the afternoon the students worked together in groups and designed a bridge initially on paper and then using a range of materials. At the end of the afternoon the teachers assessed each design and a prize was given to the winners. Again we can see this hybridised approach in action as the teachers determined the subject area, the content and the product, but allowed the students the freedom to determine their own designs.

110

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

Knowledge Transfer Partnership for Inquiry Skills The final project was a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP)1 project between CfLaT and a secondary school (Leat, Thomas, & Reid, 2012). It was designed to develop IBL for students aged 11 16. Historically, a subject-centred curriculum at the school had been producing inconsistent outcomes, and with exam results falling short of externally set targets, the principal was faced with an urgent challenge of leading change in order to improve the results. The KTP project was an innovative programme of pedagogical and professional development, which, required teachers to develop their own understanding of IBL over a relatively short period of time and which was supported by a research associate who worked with the teachers and students. The KTP model of inquiry included eight stages: gain attention, stimulate curiosity, identify the question or problem, explore, take action and/or answer the question, evaluate, make connections and amend and/or self-correct. Teachers at the school had very little exposure to IBL prior to their involvement in the KTP project. For this reason, they devised a toolkit of templates to promote thinking and questioning with their students, but the generation of questions was often an end in itself and in many lessons the questions did not become the basis of inquiry, as teachers struggled to accommodate inquiry and divergent teaching to convergent objectives. Although some sophisticated practice did develop, much remained centred on strategies that only scratched the surface; again revealing evidence of hybridised inquiry.

IBL IN ACTION: THE TRIUMPHS AND POSITIVE RESPONSE Notwithstanding the hybridisation of inquiry in the projects there were many immediate positive outcomes and it is to these that we turn next, using the dimensions identified by Bernstein.

Self-Regulation

Developing Student Independence

In the three projects, whilst the subject content of the inquiries was determined, to varying degrees, by the teachers, the students were offered

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

111

considerably more responsibility than was typical of their curriculum experience: I think I remember that week as one of the best weeks in school because we kind of did what we want, but if we asked the teachers a question they wouldn’t really answer you, you just had to figure it out for yourself, and it’s good and we had more independence because the teachers tell you everything, what to do and what not to do, and we were just, free, and it was good. (Student Experimental Week)

This signalled a move to weaker framing and was achieved through providing students with greater autonomy in their lessons with respect to decision-making. Crucially however, the students were also given access to tools and language to support this transition. Interviewer: Are [the habits of mind terms] quite useful to talk to your teachers, what would you have said before you knew these words? Student: Then you would just have mentioned the topics that you had learned and now you can mention the skills as well. (Student KTP project)

In all three projects, the teachers explained that the rationale for providing the students with greater autonomy was a desire to develop their students’ ability to work independently. This, it was felt, would improve the students’ confidence and meta-cognitive awareness and would also help them develop the competences required in later life (potentially higher education and the work place). It was generally common for teachers to value IBL for its vocational dividend: Lots of the students aren’t going to use science when they leave here, a lot are going to be stuck in [town name], so if I can give them skills they can use in other jobs and other aspects of their life, then they have gained something. (Teacher KTP Project)

The students’ response to the weaker framing in their IBL lessons was generally very positive. Firstly the students enjoyed a new sense of agency within the classroom determining what and how they learnt; but secondly they also understood the value of developing skills and dispositions that they perceived would benefit them throughout their lives. This included ‘creative stuff because we don’t normally do it, and listening and speaking skills and teamwork’ as well as developing an understanding of ‘how we can take one thing and it can be connected with every subject’ (Student-Experimental Week). One can see that the students adopt some of the discourse of vocational skills through which the teachers justified their departure from convergent teaching. In moving away from the more traditional IRF patterns of discourse within the classroom, the students were, to a degree, thrown back on

112

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

their own resources with many starting to ask themselves metacognitive questions, such as ‘What do I need to know in order to answer the question/solve the problem?’ and ‘Who/what can help me?’ I think you learn more off other people as well as teachers. (Student KTP project)

This combination of agency and a shifting regulatory discourse within the IBL classroom creates an important feedback loop: the students start to take control of their learning; they become more independent and confident as they see themselves as learners and this in turn enables them to take increasingly more control.

Relationships The development of student self-regulation was also found to impact on relationships, as teachers slowly learned to loosen their tight control on the direction and pace of learning. In all three projects there was a positive impact on the relationships within the classroom. In the Skype Seniors project for example, which involved the introduction of new voices into the classroom that were very different from that of the teachers, this helped forge new kinds of relationships with the seniors and, in some cases, between the students and their teachers. These reconfigured and new relationships demonstrated to some students that teachers are not the only source or arbiters of learning: we had, like, her point of view and cos we’re all lads and we don’t really look at it as a woman would. (Student Skype Seniors project reflecting on talking to a retired woman) Student 1: she made [Student 2] change her mind about women’s rights … because [student 2] thought that women’s rights were equal, didn’t you …? Student 2: … and I totally changed my opinions … before I thought that everything was equal but at the end, and like every time we saw her she told us different things that we weren’t equal she told us different jobs were shown to not do and stuff like that …. (Student Skype Seniors project)

One of the key indicators that existing relationships were being reconfigured was the example of a radical shift in the rules concerning who got to speak to whom and about what, which Bernstein termed the regulative discourse. There were examples of teachers becoming more open, asking the students for advice on improving lessons that had not gone well:

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

113

At the beginning of the next lesson we [the students and teacher] talked about it [the science inquiry lesson] and I said how could we make sure it didn’t happen next time? They came up with ideas, how to improve ‘give us some instructions, but not all, give the demo closer to the lesson not a gap of a week’. I have tried that since and it works really well. (Teacher KTP project)

The dialogue started to go beyond regulative discourse to impinge upon instructional discourse, as the pacing and sequencing of the knowledge presented were adjusted. The teachers and students became collaborative ‘co-inquirers’ (Wells, 2000, p. 65) developing more equal relationships as they both asked and answered questions of each other. Mr X said it was the first time that he actually saw someone go up to him in a lesson and ask him a question and he was actually quite happy. (Student KTP project)

The impact of this change in the regulative discourse meant that the students too began to see their teachers as ‘people’. Bernstein commented that when framing is weak ‘more of the teacher and taught’ enter the pedagogical frame (1975, p. 102). The thoughts of one student taking part in the Experimental Week vividly capture this sentiment: Student: Everyone’s having fun, especially miss … she’s dancing away (laughing) Interviewer: So is that something that’s a bit unusual? Student: Yeah you don’t see a teacher doing that … Interviewer: So if you think about the whole week and how the teachers were with you, was that different? Student: They were more like, they would talk to you more as a friend.

As the relationship between the students and their teacher began to transform, so too did their relationship with classmates. Through being asked to work in groups, peer relationships took on a new significance. In many examples within the projects students were put together in nonfriendship or mixed-ability groups: When we didn’t know the people in the group it was really good because we just got talking, it was alright after the first 10 minutes. I didn’t know them at all before but I’ve spoken to them since. (Student Experimental Week)

There was general consensus from the students that this enabled them to both get to know new people but also help one another the teacher was no longer the first port of call.

114

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

Identity Over time, as both the students and teachers experienced new forms of order and control and built new relationships, this too began to influence identity as both saw themselves and others in new ways. For some the changes were small as they began to think about what it means to be a ‘learner’ or a ‘teacher’; for others the changes were transformative. Several teachers across the projects transformed how they taught moving from more traditional didactic approaches to a more open, student-led pedagogy. It’s taught me not to be so much of a control freak as my own children would say, I will stand back and I will do that in a lesson and we’re trying to do more group work. (Teacher Skype Seniors project)

What appears to affirm and consolidate these transformative changes is the response of ‘others’ to those changes. Many teachers acknowledged that their students were ‘doing things I thought they couldn’t’ and were aware that IBL had the potential to empower, to build confidence and enable them to flourish. In a similar fashion many of the teachers who were involved in the IBL projects had their status raised as they became role models for their peers. Visitors always get sent my way and it makes you feel good about yourself. I bounce when I come in to work some days. (Teacher KTP project)

Contexts provide perspectives, positions and priorities from which teachers construct their identities. But contexts are not fixed, as they are composed of multiple dimensions including environmental factors, time and teachers’ personal capabilities (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). IBL provided a catalyst that shifted the dimensions of familiar contexts and allowed reshaping of identities. This opportunity also existed for some students who indicated dynamic development in their identity: Yeah it has made me think about what I can do and want to do when I leave, it has given me more confidence. (Student KTP Project)

IBL IN ACTION: THE TENSIONS In the previous section we explored the positive effects that IBL and weak framing had on student and teacher self-regulation, relationships and

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

115

identity. What is fascinating about these positive effects is that they simultaneously caused tensions for both teachers and students alike. Some of these tensions arose from the fact that when framing was weakened the familiar and safe world of the classroom was undermined. When the regulative rules and traditional roles were altered, both the teachers and students often did not know how to respond. Although these tensions only applied to some of the teachers and students, or applied at some moments, they remain formidable stumbling blocks. Well we didn’t really understand it that much because we’d never done it before and we were thinking ‘why haven’t we been told what to do?’ Why are we being sent off to do something we’ve never done? (Student KTP project)

Interestingly even the students noticed that this new way of teaching was causing their teachers a level of discomfort that they could sense: They are used to their old teaching methods so they don’t enjoy enquiry as much as they enjoy doing the lessons they used to do because that is easier because they have been doing it for so long. (Student KTP project)

For students in particular, whose ‘definitions of school and classroom behaviour can be powerful conservative forces in educational practice’ (Ruddock, 1980, p. 142), the response was often to want to ‘reinstate the familiar, the comfortably predictable’ (ibid., p. 142). Some students said they preferred to work at tables and from text books and did not like the fact that they had to make so many decisions: I would rather work from text books for my GCSEs, I don’t know why, but I prefer text books and answering questions in tests. (Student Experimental Week)

Other students demonstrated an inability to self-regulate and take control of their learning, which resulted in off-task behaviour and incomplete work. … you’d start fighting because there was no one there to tell you what to do,(no) one person, there were a lot of people who wanted to do different things, so it wasn’t just one person telling you what to do, what you HAD to do. (Student Experimental Week) There are some people who mess about who haven’t been given anything to do so they get to do what they want. They go away and build a tower or something instead of being on task. (Student KTP project)

The most significant tensions though arose when the students in the projects began to approach their exams. Exams require a ‘right’ answer (particularly the General Certificate of Secondary Education or GCSE, taken at 16) and so the adoption of a pedagogic approach which was underpinned

116

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

by weak framing was felt by many students to cause them unnecessary stress: it’s frustrating while you’re doing it because even though you know he’s trying to give out teamwork skills and getting you to learn to think for yourselves instead of relying on him we’re still all in the middle of our GCSEs and we just want you to give us the right answers so we can learn it and I think that’s what is stressful for a lot of people. We just want the correct answers so we can go and learn them instead of having to go and find it. (Student KTP project)

With a dominant discourse in England which promotes a view of a successful education as passing exams, getting good grades and then going to university, it is understandable that students in this climate feel under intense pressure to demonstrate ‘success’ in this way. For the students to accept that they are capable of learning enough to pass an exam through their own efforts would require a shift in their ‘epistemological perspective’ (Hockings, 2009, p. 91) away from the teacher as the font of all knowledge. For many students, at exam-time, this is a step too far. Of course all of these tensions were compounded by the fact that the IBL in these projects was only being experienced in a minority of lessons. For the students this meant they were receiving mixed messages expected to behave in different ways in different lessons. This understandably caused stress for some.

CONCLUSION Despite the many positive outcomes of introducing hybridised IBL, the consequences often induce confusion and contradiction. In summarising our findings we come to the following conclusions: 1. The students are generally positive about the experience of IBL and data shows that there are diverse learning outcomes very different from their experiences of convergent pedagogy. 2. Students have more autonomy, responsibility and choice (this constitutes weak ‘framing’ using Bernstein’s concept), however some students find the transition from strong to weak framing very challenging, as a different regulative discourse develops. 3. Students and teachers forge more positive relationships with each other in consequence of the weak framing.

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

117

4. Teachers have varied reactions of which most are broadly positive. However negative aspects include the feeling of losing control of learning, discomfort at having to teach more flexibly and worries about covering examination content. This very frequently leads to a diluted or hybridised form of inquiry. 5. We attribute these outcomes to the friction between inquiry as an innovative and divergent activity clashing with convergent pedagogy as the dominant activity (Saninno, 2008), which is very hard for innovative teachers to combat. 6. Inquiry encourages the development of identity for both teachers and students as they add other dimensions to the raw material from which they construct their identity. For us the penultimate point is of the greatest significance. Students are often confused and anxious about the differences they perceive between IBL and more convergent teaching, between weak and strong framing. Akkerman and Van Eijck (2013, p. 61) have drawn attention to the discontinuities and boundaries between different learning contexts and communities, stressing the differences between inside school and outside school: learners, during learning processes within school contexts, may draw from and negotiate between different communities … both within, as well as outside, school. In so doing, assumed boundaries between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ school turn out to be porous and complex.

We would argue on the basis of our evidence that students can experience boundaries, not only between inside and outside school, but also between different curriculum models within school. As a consequence there is a pressing need for a more explicit language of learning that helps students to bridge between learning contexts and communities. In relation to teacher anxieties and varied reactions, it is evident that teachers respond personally to the contexts in which they find themselves, based on their existing knowledge and beliefs, and their own sense of agency. More recently, however, the concept of ecological agency (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) emphasised the influence contexts, or local conditions, in which teachers operate. In this view, agency does not only reside in the individual but also, to a large degree, in the context. The environment, or the social and cultural context, can be seen to encourage or discourage teachers to act on their beliefs. For example, if they believe that IBL presents a risk to classroom control, then being encouraged by school leaders, local luminaries, university staff, or business leaders provides some incentive.

118

DAVID LEAT ET AL.

Where teachers perceive they have greater freedom to act and they are more likely to do just that. Conversely, teachers will limit their actions to ‘what they can get away with’ or they do not pursue IBL until they perceive a shift in context, which is more favourable. Newcastle University positions itself as a civic university with a mission statement that staff should play a role in the economic, social and cultural life of the region, and it has adopted the tagline ‘Excellence with a Purpose’. University staff are encouraged to commit to engagement activities and as a result we have been encouraged to support IBL and other curriculum innovations in an effort to increase the propensity of schools and teachers to ‘take a risk’ and develop their freedom to act. This is not a precise science but currently includes the following: • We have redesigned our masters degree provision into a series of 60 credit Post-Graduate Certificates that include certificates in Innovative Pedagogy and Curriculum and Mentoring and Coaching for Teacher Change; • We offer a pro-bono network for schools interested in IBL, which acts as a repository and knowledge exchange; • We offer brokerage between educational resource providers (charities, educational outreach officers) and schools to support IBL; • We organise a conference annually featuring IBL and Project-Based Learning (PBL); • We distribute a termly email bulletin with news and resources relating to IBL and PBL; • We are producing a digital Schools Guide to IBL with many links to reports and case studies. It is through such action, we believe, that the dominant discourse of convergent pedagogy is challenged and teachers and schools are encouraged in their belief in the value of IBL, both for individual students and for society.

NOTE 1. A Knowledge Transfer Partnership is a government backed scheme in which an ‘associate’, with an academic supervisor works in a business or public service for 2 years to solve a problem or improve a product.

The Phenomenon of ‘Hybridisation’ in IBL

119

REFERENCES Akkerman, S., & Van Eijck, M. (2013). Re-theorising the student dialogically across and between boundaries of multiple communities. British Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 60 72. doi:10.1080/01411926.2011.613454 Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In The nature of learning using research to inspire practice. Paris: OECD. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287 302. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151 Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control, volume 3 towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132 149. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). ‘What is agency?’ American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962 1023. doi:10.1086/231294 Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student-centred learning cannot reach. British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 83 98. doi:10.1080/01411920802041640 Leat, D., Thomas, U., & Reid, A. (2012). The epistemological fog in realising learning to learn in European curriculum policies. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 400 412. doi:10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.400 Programme for International Student Assessment. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.oecd. org/pisa/home/. Accessed on June 9. Ruddock, J. (1980). Insights into the process of dissemination. British Educational Research Journal, 6(2). Saninno, A. (2008). Sustaining a non-dominant activity in school: Only a utopia? Journal of Educational Change, 9, 329 338. doi:10.10007/s10833-088-9080z Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Sarja, A., Hamalainen, S., & Poikonen, P.-L. (2009). Professional learning communities and teacher well-being? A comparative analysis of primary schools in England and Finland. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 405 422. doi:10.1080/03054980902935008 Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2012). Changing spaces: Preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 52 74.

WAYS OF INQUIRY: THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE OXFORD COLLEGE GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM Jeffery Galle, Brenda Harmon, Alicia Ory DeNicola and Bridgette Gunnels ABSTRACT This chapter presents the narratives of four faculty who have designed Inquiry-Based Learning courses for students in the first two years of undergraduate study at Emory University, a major research institution. Oxford College of Emory offers an array of inquiry-based courses, and students choose three such courses during their two years at Oxford. While inquiry has enjoyed clear successes in the courses of every liberal arts discipline at the college, one repeated area of struggle was “assessment” in these nontraditional courses. To address this question, a small group of faculty chosen for their representation of major academic areas of natural sciences (Organic Chemistry), social sciences (Economic Anthropology), literature (Literary Criticism), and language (Intermediate Spanish) convened during the 2013 2014 academic year

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 121 146 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001008

121

122

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

to discuss and develop examples of assessment techniques in the inquiry classroom. This chapter offers their experiences in development and assessment of IBL courses.

INTRODUCTION Oxford College of Emory University is unique among small, residential, liberal arts colleges. One of nine divisions of Emory University, Oxford College provides 900 first- and second-year students with an intense experiential-learning environment that specializes in research, leadership, and collaborative opportunities with faculty all during the first two years. Students who complete the curriculum of the college’s liberal arts program automatically become juniors in the Emory College of Arts and Sciences, one of the country’s top 20 research institutions (U.S. News & World Report, n.d.). Oxford College students who have completed the curriculum may also elect to compete with others for admission to Emory’s business or nursing school. During a two-year strategic planning process, Oxford faculty, staff, and students, with strong administrative support, worked to clearly articulate both the college’s success as well as its vision for the future. The growth of Inquiry-Based learning was central in focusing the college’s current successes and in addressing the strategic imperative going forward: Thus was born Oxford’s “Ways of Inquiry” (INQ) initiative, which became the heart of the college’s General Education Plan (GEP). During their first two years, Oxford students are introduced to disciplinary ways of thinking, of seeing the world, and of pursuing knowledge. In the original faculty-designed definition, the “way” in Ways of Inquiry “implies there is a culture of how things are done in each discipline. An introductory course should introduce a student to the way of the discipline” (Gowler & Rogers, 2009, p. 2). Similarly, “inquiry” is meant to highlight the “seeking of knowledge in the discipline. The way of inquiry is roughly how knowledge is sought in the discipline” (Gowler & Rogers, 2009, p. 2). Thus the focus of the general program suggests an attention to disciplinary ways of knowing, active questioning, and experiential-learning techniques that ask the student to dialectically engage in the learning process. The college now offers an array of inquiry-based courses, and Oxford students choose three such courses during their two years at Oxford. While

123

Ways of Inquiry

INQ has enjoyed clear successes in every division, one repeated area of struggle was “assessment” in the nontraditional classroom. To address this question, a small group of faculty convened during the 2013 2014 academic year to discuss and provide examples of assessment techniques in the INQ classroom. This chapter presents four of those examples, chosen for their representation of the major academic areas of natural sciences (Organic Chemistry), social sciences (Economic Anthropology), literature (Literary Criticism), and language (Intermediate Spanish). What became clear during the process was that “assessment” in INQ was more than figuring out how to provide fair grades to our students while using nontraditional, experiential-learning techniques (though of course we do that, too). INQ for each one of us is also about using our students’ successes as a weigh point in our own teaching dialectic. Traditional teaching suggests that the teacher is a purveyor of information and it is the student who either absorbs or does not. Instead the faculty here are modeling the INQ process in their own teaching styles, explicitly asking about classroom and disciplinary goals, about how to recognize success and failure, and what evidence needs to be gathered and questions asked to improve on our particular goals in the context of the wider liberal arts. We do this by teaching INQ but we also do this by modeling INQ: InquiryBased Learning is a tool that encourages the same habits of mind in the instructor as it does in our students. Thus the process of assessment in the classroom becomes, itself, an inquiry-based problem that allows for a unique, reflective, and evidence-based dialectic that takes classroom experience, mistakes, and successes into account as we build our own disciplinary teaching skills. Each author, below, follows a similar structural pattern: course context, element(s) of inquiry, outcome assessed/data gathering, and analysis/conclusions.

CONCLUSION Inquiry-Based Learning is ideal for first- and second-year students pursuing their undergraduate, professional, and graduate degrees in the research university for two fundamental reasons: IBL introduces disciplinary forms of thought early in the undergraduate careers of students and simultaneously supports learning goals of the general education program. As importantly, however, it also encourages us to treat our own classrooms as emerging and dialectic spaces of discovery for the process of teaching.

124

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

We now provide the individual narratives that set forth the ways we have embedded IBL in the inquiry courses across the college and disciplines.

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Brenda Harmon, Senior Lecturer Context Organic Chemistry is a two-semester study of the properties, reactions, and synthesis of organic molecules and requires two semesters of General Chemistry as a prerequisite. A typical first-semester organic laboratory course is a survey of separation techniques using a “cookbook” approach where students follow detailed procedures (Russell & Weaver, 2008). Even courses that do include a research module (Lawrie, Adams, Blanchfield, Gahan, & Weaver, 2009) or guided-inquiry component (Dunlap & Martin, 2012) have the students follow detailed protocols. Using Inquiry-Based Learning, I developed quite a different course.

Inquiry Assignments As an introduction to my course, students were shown molecular structures representing the 25 most common substances in energy beverages. They were told that at the end of the course (as a lab practical) they would be required to use their understanding of structure, polarity, and solubility to develop their own procedures to isolate caffeine from the other ingredients in a random energy drink. To prepare them, they were never given protocols to follow, but were provided general background information about how to perform select laboratory techniques. They received a series of simple separation challenges to isolate compounds from common products such as ketchup and Tylenol and worked in teams to use the new techniques. The problems increased in complexity over time and students repeated and combined the techniques in different variations to build skills and understanding. Because there were no written instructions, there were mistakes and blind alleys as part of the inquiry process. The general background information and goals of each separation challenge were the only written information provided to students; I supplied all other support by asking

125

Ways of Inquiry

questions that helped direct their thinking, thereby creating an environment where mistakes were encouraged as part of the learning process. By the end of the semester, the students accumulated knowledge, skills, and attitudes which allowed them to complete the caffeine challenge a very empowering experience. My sophomore students were thereby “doing science” in a difficult, introductory course. I encouraged techniques that led to data failure by design. In the first separation challenge they learned to ask “What is the evidence telling me?” By using techniques that led to incomplete separation, they collected evidence that was more than 1,000% too high. Most students did not even notice. In other challenges they learned to ask “What is the evidence NOT telling me?” Organic laboratory techniques are specialized for identifying covalently bonded molecules and will not identify ionic substances that may be present. This is an important concept for thinking like a chemist and a difficult revelation for students. Cookbook experiments condition students to follow a detailed set of complex tasks in order to get “the right answers.” Nothing could be further from the inquiry nature of science! Because of this unusual approach, when students left the laboratory to write their reports (individually) the focus was shifted to critically examining their evidence and evaluating their procedures to find possible flaws. When students are taught to question their assumptions and to examine a technique in context, they develop an appreciation for the limitations of that technique. The process of evaluating their own procedures and data to discover methodological flaws pushes students to higher levels of thinking described in Bloom’s taxonomy and provides them with a way to see how knowledge is created in science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Germann, 1996; Gormally, Brickman, Hallar, & Armstrong, 2009).

Outcomes Assessed Students were required to write the results and conclusion for each laboratory in the style of a scientific paper. I developed a holistic rubric for scientific reasoning skills based on the work of Timmerman, Strickland, Johnson, and Payne (2011) and gave feedback as the problems increased in complexity. I assessed their ability to examine evidence more rigorously using four criteria: (1) Evidence reported was necessary to achieve the purpose. (2) Data analysis was evident and appropriate.

126

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

(3) Critical reasoning was employed to determine what the data analysis meant regarding the quality, validity, and reliability of the evidence. (4) Conclusions were based on the evidence. I assessed the ability to embrace mistakes as part of the inquiry process using three criteria for student work: (1) Identified problems with the evidence and sources of error that were supported by mathematical reasoning. (2) Identified limitations of the technique in the context of the work. (3) Addressed how the method could be meaningfully improved. Each student’s abilities were rated along a continuum of inadequate, developing, or good. A combined score summarized each student’s level of independence in the inquiry process using a rubric developed during a faculty seminar at Oxford College based on the work of Perry (1970). Students used this rating to follow their overall progress (Table 1). I assessed acquisition of course content, inquiry thinking skills, and level of sophistication in formatting the reports separately (Fig. 1), and was intentional about not giving a prescriptive formula for the reports. Students were held responsible for adhering to the basic format of a scientific paper and were expected to decide what evidence to report and how to report it. For this study I followed the progress of each student’s level of independence in inquiry (Fig. 2) and gave a written final that included a laboratory scenario with a purpose, procedure, and raw data. The scenario was complex and required learners to sort through relevant and irrelevant evidence in order to write the results and conclusion. Comparing their performance on the first assignment to their performance on the final (with no rubric to guide them), I sought to determine whether they had internalized the outcomes (Table 2).

Analysis Three themes emerged as I focused on the seven criteria for this study. Students who demonstrated the ability to examine evidence more rigorously and embrace mistakes: (1) Demonstrated appreciation for the central role that evidence holds in the inquiry process;

No Apparent Independence in Inquiry Student demonstrates apparent mindless progression through the inquiry task No awareness that meaning construction is required for application of course thinking skills There is an apparent over reliance on right/wrong mentality in terms of findings or answers

Tentative Steps Toward Independence in Inquiry

Developing Progress Towards Independence in Inquiry

Ways of Inquiry

Table 1. Rubric for Summarizing Each Student’s Independence in Inquiry Based on their Progress Toward the Two Targeted Ways of Inquiry Outcomes. More Fully Independent Inquiry

Student demonstrates a consistent Student demonstrates a consistent Student demonstrates an effort to construct meaning using effort to construct meaning inconsistent effort to create the thinking tools of the discipline. using the tools of the discipline meaning from the inquiry task There is a solid understanding of Numerous misconceptions, fuzzy However, misconceptions, fuzzy the material and how it can be logic/reasoning, and logic/reasoning, and applied to construct meaning and undisciplined habits of mind undisciplined habits of mind knowledge often interfere with meaning impede any real meaning Misconceptions, fuzzy logic/reasoning making making do not interfere and disciplined Student sees a multiplicity of There is a sense of relativism; habits of mind are apparent “any answer/finding is right in possibilities and has trouble some context” examining them in a disciplined The student recognizes a multiplicity of approaches and in a disciplined way rigorous manner moves through each examining, evaluating, and coming up with an independent complex response

127

128

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

Content

Inquiry thinking skills

Fig. 1.

Paper format

A Model for the Ways of Inquiry Laboratory Course Design.

Fig. 2. Tracking the Overall Progress of Student Performance and Assessing Independence in Inquiry from the First Post-Lab Writing Assignment to the Final Post-Lab Writing Assignment Using the Rubric.

(2) Approached discovery of methodological flaws (mistakes) as a necessary part of a nonlinear, complex understanding of the scientific method; and (3) Exhibited proficiency in mathematical reasoning abilities necessary to examine the quality of evidence and support claims regarding sources of error.

129

Ways of Inquiry

Table 2. A Comparison of Student Performance on the First Post-Lab Writing Assignment to Each Students’ Same Performance on the Laboratory Scenario Portion of the Written Lab Final. Student Performance Measure

Ability to examine evidence more rigorously and use it effectively to make a valid conclusion Ability to discover methodological flaws Overall evaluation of independence in inquiry

Students given the Same Rating at the Beginning and End of the Semester (%)

Students Who Showed Significant Improvement over the Course of the Semester (%)

50

50

75

25

81

19

Note: n = 62.

Early on, I observed that the vast majority of students did not spend much time examining their laboratory evidence. In the first separation challenge, I encouraged the use of techniques that led to data failure (1,000% too high) in that particular context. In the prerequisite chemistry courses students were directed to use simple statistics to examine data quality more than seven different times. Regrettably, without explicit directions few did more than calculate an average; the actual evidence seemed to be irrelevant when making their conclusions. Some creative learners even moved decimal places on their data so that it would match the literature values! This behavior indicates that they saw the inquiry process as linear; once they figured out how to get evidence, that evidence could be accepted unconditionally. In the final challenges, many students revealed an intuition that helped them discover flaws without using mathematical reasoning to support their claims. In future iterations of the course, I intend to emphasize connecting their naı¨ ve intuition with scientific habits of mind. Later, students demonstrated a higher regard for carefully obtained and rigorously examined evidence, both in the lab and in their written work. However, discovering sources of error and suggesting meaningful changes to the procedure seems to be the most difficult aspect of the inquiry process. Most students initially provided a mere bullet list of “things they did wrong,” but by the final assignment 88% of the students were rated at developing independence. Regrettably, this does not indicate internalized

130

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

behavior. Only 19% of the students were rated at this level on the final exam. Discovering methodological flaws requires an understanding of the course content, the inquiry process, and high-level scientific and mathematical reasoning abilities. My students understood that they were not expected to master this level of thinking as sophomores, but that this is what will be expected of them as they progress to upper-level courses. Students enjoyed the challenge and became aware that much more is required of them in order to engage in science than following cookbook protocols and “getting the right answers.”

LITERARY CRITICISM Jeffery Galle, Associate Professor of English

Context Literary criticism presents students with the problem of the meaning of literary texts. Interpretations of any text can range across a wide array of strategies to construct meaning a feminist reading Alice Walker’s “Every Day Use” may be very different from a structuralist reading or a postmodern reading, for example. Traditionally anchored in a chronological survey of literary schools beginning with 1950s New Criticism and ending with late 20th century Postmodernism, literary criticism courses ask students to model the interpretive strategies of successive schools. As such, these research-based courses can stultify individual interpretation and curiosity about the rich variety of interpretive strategies. My INQ course takes a very different approach.

Elements of Inquiry Rather than studying successive schools of interpretation, the students in this literary criticism course begin reading short stories. Through close readings of canonical short stories, students develop short lists of questions in response to the prompts “What do we know for sure about this story?” and “What are the key questions that get at the heart of this story?” Using these deceptively simple prompts, the students, with guidance, construct

Ways of Inquiry

131

the basis for short interpretive essays (4 6 pages) and the semester research project (10 15 pages), each of which grows out of individual perceptions of meaning of a particular short story. Once students have developed questions that, for them, get at the heart of a short story, they will investigate the various means of addressing their own questions. Meaningfully answering each question opens the door to exploration of the tools of literary criticism (e.g., the literary schools that provide different frameworks to address the problem of meaning). Through a set of short readings of published literary interpretations, students take responsibility to lead a class discussion of how new concepts and terms answer the questions that individual students have raised. From these introductory facilitations of class discussion, students begin to shape their own approach to reading and interpretation. The goal of the course is for students to become novice literary critics, and the scholarly products of the course include literary readings of modern (recently-published) short stories. From reading, to questioning, to exploring particular theoretical frameworks, students actively model the scholarly inquiry into interpretation of literary texts. By mid-semester with the anthology of canonical short stories completed and with a wide range of interpretive strategies introduced in successive facilitations, each student develops a research project focusing on a short story from a recently published anthology of world short stories. This story and literary interpretive approach form the basis of their research project. All the preliminary work of the semester developing key questions, reading/discussing canonical short stories, student-led facilitation of other literary interpretive strategies has led to this independent research project whose goal is an original literary interpretation that addresses the key questions that get “at the heart” of the selected short story. These individual projects take a written form and the results are presented in class sometimes in group panels if several students have selected the same story from the modern anthology yet have applied different interpretive methods to the stories. The panels provide the context for a return to the fundamental scholarly process: raising researchable questions that get to the heart of the story. Through successive assignments, students are challenged to reflect on the nature of their own and others’ interpretations. Modeling the scholarly process of interpretation is the large-scale inquiry process that includes development of the research questions and the identification of a suitable theoretical approach. The final result is an original critical interpretation of a newly published short story using the student’s choice of critical approach or approaches.

132

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

Outcome Assessed: Question Making Students are challenged to create good, researchable questions, and the focus of much early discussion in the course involves getting at the heart of the story (much debate here ensues, of course) through raising questions. Because this course emphasizes questions raised by students, I decided to assess the progress students were making in their question making over the course of the semester. I sought to find a way that could assess the increase in sophistication and complexity of students’ questions as their experience with and exploration of the stories progress from basic literary terms to new terms and concepts provided through the student-led facilitations. A number of interesting ways of categorizing questions exist, but I settled on the “divergent” questions category developed by Erickson (2007). Data Gathering Using the Minute Paper (Davis, 1993) and the taxonomy of questions developed by Erickson (2007), a data set was gathered each week from the second week of the course through the thirteenth week. Prior to the class discussion of particular stories, students were asked to provide “questions that probed the center of the story” for that week. According to Erickson, divergent questions allow students to explore different avenues and create many different variations and alternative answers or scenarios. The open-ended quality of these questions is useful in inquiry for the reason that many avenues can be discovered and followed by such questions. Students must perform a number of intellectual tasks analyze, conjecture, imagine, infer, or project in order to follow a line of thinking to address such questions. This open-ended, multivariable approach was precisely what I hoped students would develop in their study of literary interpretation. Analysis The sets of weekly questions students submitted from the second week of the course through the week before final exams offered some interesting discoveries. (1) Students whose questions could be categorized earlier in the semester as the divergent type were those who developed the most versatile, compelling research questions and topics at mid-semester.

133

Ways of Inquiry

(2) Students who developed divergent questions later in the semester tended to adopt single-strand approaches to textual interpretation. (3) In conferencing with individual students to develop the research project, I found that those who could explore multiple approaches to textual interpretation more frequently did a better job in developing their own “blend” of critical approaches with their research project. (4) Students who developed divergent questions earlier were also the students adapted to the independence required of them by the inquiry based pedagogy. From this single assessment of divergent questions, I have developed better examples for students that I offer them earlier in the semester when their questions are not researchable or open-ended.

ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY Alicia Denicola, Assistant Professor of Anthropology

Context Economic Anthropology is the study of how humans impact and are impacted by material culture and the practices surrounding the movement of material culture.1 In this course we look, in particular, at gift exchange as a key aspect of the way that material culture gets moved around, thus affecting (and effecting) power, wealth, and interpersonal relationships. The organization of the course is intended to situate the student researcher as both a purveyor of knowledge and an active receiver of that knowledge through peer review and discussion. Because students bring in empirically documented original data and because they are asked to engage their own work as part of the class content, I am able to assess whether these practices lead students to see themselves as active learners and whether they identify some of their learning as extending beyond the discipline. While the case studies in this chapter are concerned with exploring how we can assess INQ learning in our students, the reflective nature of the pedagogy lends itself to, and is inseparable from, our own assessment of class success and ourselves as teachers. Thus, in this section, I tack back and forth between what students learn and what I learn in the classroom. As a course that overlaps with another discipline, Economic Anthropology provides a rich comparative environment for larger

134

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

questions: what is a discipline and how is it “disciplined?” Might we see disciplines as different “cultures” and use the tools of anthropology to more deeply understand how these disciplines distinguish themselves? To determine whether my students enhanced their higher-level thinking skills, I used the Rubric for the Six Facets of Understanding by Wiggins and McTighe (2006, p. 276). While all six facets of the rubric are important skills, this upper division course is especially focused on those facets labeled Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge (Table 3).

The Element of Inquiry The integrated goals of the course measure progressive levels of understanding: from participant observation, to use of evidence, to understanding of “the economy” as an anthropological concept, and to understand how disciplines are built on contextualized conversations which students must enter into. Students complete three research papers during the term. The first paper asks students to use theories from their reading to understand a particular gift-giving experience or observation in their own lives. The second paper asks students to build on the course readings and outside research to analyze their particular experience symbolically. The final paper requires students to analyze their previous papers paying particular attention to how they enter into the “conversation” provided by course materials, and to then do a limited literature review within the discipline. This assignment asks students to incorporate all aspects of their research into an analysis of how their particular experience might add to the already existing “conversation” or literature.

Data Gathering In addition to the above-mentioned trio of research papers, I employ two techniques or instruments for assessment and for gathering data on pedagogical effectiveness. The first is a short midterm feedback form with a focus on the ways students understand the concept of INQ and its manifestations within the course. The second could be thought of as “participantobservation,” a qualitative research method key in anthropology and predicated on the value of a sort of role-play in which the observational mode of experience intrinsic to the role of researcher is hybridized with the

135

Ways of Inquiry

more participatory experiential mode of the research subject. In the present context, this entails a structured effort to intermittently place students in the role of “evaluator,” encouraging them to reflect (in the form of written notes) on how they know when they know something.

Analysis and Findings Participant Observation About half of my students self-identify as economics majors and they bring in key economics narratives, the most common being classic ideas of rationality and self-interest. The cultural rules of gift-giving, and Mauss’s (1990) idea that one is obliged to reciprocate often lead students to combine their emerging ideas of economics and gift-giving to begin to see such exchange as instrumental and self-interested. Students make rich connections between gift giving and economics, yet they often lose sight of the social, affective, and relational aspects of the practice in the process. As I became more aware of the trajectory of student thought, I realized that, if given key questions to explore themselves, students often come to a kind of crisis that leads to deeper questioning. For instance, in the last course I taught, a student came in just after midterms and said, “I’m think it’s really interesting to see how gift-giving works, but now every time I get or receive a gift … I feel like the person who is giving the gift is just selfinterested … It’s made me feel bad about other people.” This opens up a conversation about what “self-interest” means in economics, about students’ lives, and the effect of metaphorical categories on our relationship to others and the world around us. Recognizing this set of questions as a turning point in the course allows me to see inquiry as central to course design. Midterm Feedback Form Midterm feedback forms are confidential and ungraded. The questionnaire assesses whether students are able to articulate what the course is about: main ideas, trajectories, goals. One question asks students whether and how the course was taught as an “INQ” course, and asks about connections between inquiry and the larger discipline. Student responses suggest they are beginning to develop a sense of context and perspective. Interestingly, while 14 of 17 students said that the course was highly INQ, a quantitative coding of responses suggested that they often equate INQ with “discuss” (nine uses), “read” (nine uses), “understand” (seven uses), and “think” (six uses). Other languages that emerged as a theme included “forced” or

136

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

“make” (i.e., this class “forces me” or “makes me” do/see/work in different ways, eight uses), “criticize, critical, analyze or analytical” (six uses), and own or we (as in “we had to” or “on our own” (six uses)). Students did seem to get the contextual nature of the course and to see inquiry as a way of seeing within a particular perspective. Papers Students are often uncomfortable with the idea of seeing their own experiences as peer-reviewable evidence. Because students must go through a peer review and a conference presentation/discussion of each paper, the information that is produced in the course is also folded into their ethnographic knowledge base alongside more traditional readings. In one instance, three students wrote about the same gift-giving situation, the engagement ring. As the class listened to all three very different papers about the same topic, it became clear that, while all of them engaged with Mauss’s (1990) idea of reciprocity, none of them engaged the question of what was expected in return for the engagement ring, even though their structuring theory was about reciprocity. The class was able to ask why this happened and explore issues of culture. And, because we were talking about a set of papers, we were able to talk about practice at the level of both personal and structural behavior. Individually, the writers were able to engage in a larger cultural analysis of their topic because of the shared knowledge base, and as a class we were able to discuss the idea of academic knowledge as collective and as a process of inquiry, rather than as a document of correct or incorrect answers. The trajectory of these inquiry-based assessment techniques is meant to engender a sense of context: a realization that students are entering into an already existing discipline, culture, or way of knowing. Developing these concepts gives students the tools to see other disciplines and other cultures similarly. They must be able to ask what this disciplinary way of knowing can tell us that another way of knowing cannot. Rather than asking which way of knowing is “best,” they begin to ask “best for what” and under what circumstances. In particular student papers and their responses to the midterm feedback form suggest that students move from the bottom of Wiggins and McTighe’s Rubric for the Six Facets of Understanding (2006, p. 178) to the middle section. To give just one example, the Perspective facet moves through the stages Uncritical, Aware, Considered, Thorough, Insightful. Using students own understanding of gift-giving within the context of “economy” (in anthropology) allows students to gain “Considered Perspective: a reasonably critical and comprehensive look at all the points

137

Ways of Inquiry

of view in the context of one’s own; mak[ing] clear that there is a plausibility to other points of view” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006, p. 178).

INTERMEDIATE SPANISH Bridgette Gunnels, Lecturer of Spanish

Context The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has set the standard for learning outcomes in foreign languages. Language learning is undergirded by the “5 Cs”: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and community (ACTFL, 2010). Language courses frequently focus on the first two of these goals (communication and cultures) because class size and disparity of ability level can limit a teacher’s achievable goals. However, Inquiry-Based Learning can speak to the individual student’s reality and thereby elicit more active language use while reducing language anxiety. In my Intermediate Spanish class, I have combined IBL with Service Learning components to connect these two experiential approaches to learning Spanish. This brief case study describes how the use of image response free writing in Spanish encouraged deeper questioning of Hispanic stereotypes and how students identified these stereotypes and came to understand difference. The image response/free writing assignment was repeated weekly, and I tracked how the student response changed over the course of the semester. The service learning component required students to spend two hours each week outside of the classroom time in the Hispanic community, working with and learning firsthand the very content of the course.

The Element of Inquiry The free writing responses to visual prompts that upheld, deconstructed, or questioned our course theme (identity and immigration) enabled me to gauge how student perception of Hispanic immigrants developed across the semester. Furthermore, focusing on questions of identity and pursuing the reasons behind immigration effectively pushed grammar discussion to

138

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

the background. Language anxiety was eclipsed by student interest in the conversation that unfolded. Initial responses were consistently challenged throughout the semester, primarily by what students observed and learned through their service learning in the Hispanic immigrant community (the majority of which were undocumented immigrant families). Many second-language learning strategies focus on “retrieval & rehearsal” (Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1996) and “cover strategies” (i.e., ways learners create the impression they have control over the information that in reality they do not by commenting in superficial ways). I used open writing tasks with image prompts as a means of reducing use of retrieval and rehearsal. Combining intense classroom discussion with a connected Service Learning community engagement experience pushes the student out of the cognitive use of L2 and into the metacognitive. The free writing response to visual images in Intermediate Spanish (INQ) was an activity meant to measure this goal of metacognitive language use. Students moved beyond rehearsal and retrieval and instead actively questioned what they learned from secondary sources to what they observed in the Hispanic community. Each week students were presented with a visual image and the general prompt, Que´ ves? [What do you see?]. Students were allotted 7 10 minutes to write in Spanish. The images varied from those that upheld common US stereotypes of Hispanic immigrants, to images of Hispanic children in American schools, migrant workers in rural farms, and day laborers waiting for the next job. I also included images of highly successful Hispanic immigrants and other visuals that would deconstruct what the common stereotype would seek to establish. Figs. 3 and 4 highlight two images used that upheld stereotypical ideas of undocumented immigrants that were used in the first group of papers. By the end of the semester when I chose to show them the original images again, student responses showed more introspection and cultural sensitivity. Traditional pedagogy strategies for language courses do not take into account student absorption of the content, nor their reaction to it, or how this reaction changes over time. For example, using rehearsal and retrieval a teacher directs an exchange questions to which students can be simply prepared (both in terms of grammar structures as well as vocabulary). The learning goal is centered on hearing, understanding, and responding appropriately. While this method promotes grammatical correctness, it is possible that a student is not engaged in the conversation but responds automatically in a type of robo-response. The Wiggins and McTighe (2006) rubric enabled me to study how the students moved out of rehearsal and retrieval (bottom of rubric) and into higher stages of understanding as seen ?

139

Ways of Inquiry

Fig. 3.

Day Laborers in Atlanta, Georgia.

Fig. 4.

Possible Border Crossing.

through their writing in Spanish. Specifically I was looking for trends that moved student response to the images out of the literal, egocentric, and innocent quadrants and into the profound, insightful, and circumspect quadrants (Table 3).

Explanation

Rubric for the Six Facets of Understanding (Wiggins and McTighe).

Interpretation

Application

Profound: a powerful Masterful: fluent, Sophisticated: an flexible, and and illuminating unusually thorough, efficient; able to use interpretation and elegant, and knowledge and skill analysis of the inventive account and adjust importance/ (model, theory, or understandings well meaning/ explanation); fully in novel, diverse, significance; tells a supported, verified, and difficult rich and insightful and justified; deep contexts story; provides a and broad; goes rich history or well beyond the context; sees deeply information given and incisively any ironies in the different interpretations

Empathy

Self-Knowledge

Mature: disposed and Wise: deeply aware of Insightful: a the boundaries of able to see and feel penetrating and one’s own and what others see and novel viewpoint; others’ feel; unusually open effectively critiques understanding; able to and willing to and encompasses to recognize his seek out the odd, other plausible prejudices and alien, or different perspectives; takes a projections; has long and integrity able and dispassionate, willing to act on critical view of the what one issues involved understands

Thorough: a revealing Sensitive: disposed to Revealing: a nuanced Skilled: competent in see and feel what using knowledge and coordinated interpretation and others see and feel; and skill and critical view; makes analysis of the open to the adapting own view more importance/ unfamiliar and understanding in a plausible by meaning/ different variety of considering the significance; tells an appropriate and plausibility of other insightful story; demanding contexts perspectives; makes provides a telling apt criticisms, history or context; discriminations, and sees subtle qualifications differences, levels, and ironies in diverse interpretations

Circumspect: aware of one’s ignorance and that of others; aware of one’s prejudices; knows the strengths and limits of one’s understanding

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

In-depth: an atypical and revealing account, going beyond what is obvious or what was explicitly taught; makes subtle connections; well supported by argument and evidence; novel thinking displayed

Perspective

140

Table 3.

Thoughtful: generally Aware: knows and Able: able to perform Considered: a aware of what is feels what others see reasonably critical well with knowledge and is not and feel differently; and comprehensive and skill in a few understood; aware somewhat able to look at all the key contexts, with a of how prejudice empathize with points of view in the limited repertoire, and projection can others; has difficulty context of one’s flexibility, or occur without making sense of own; makes clear adaptability to awareness and odd or alien views that there is diverse contexts shape one’s views plausibility to other points of view

Interpreted: a Intuitive: an plausible incomplete account interpretation or but with apt and analysis of the insightful ideas; importance/ extends and deepens meaning/ some of what was significance; makes learned; some sense of a story; “reading between provides history the lines”; account and context has limited support/ argument/data or sweeping generalizations. There is a theory, but one with limited testing and evidence

Developing: has some Unreflective: generally Apprentice: relies on a Aware: knows of unaware of one’s capacity and selfdifferent points of limited repertoire of specific ignorance; discipline to “walk view and somewhat routines; able to generally unaware in another’s shoes” able to place own perform well in of how subjective but is still primarily view in perspective, familiar or simple prejudgments color limited to one’s own but weakness in contexts, with understandings reactions and considering worth perhaps some attitudes; puzzled or of each perspective, needed coaching; put out by different especially one’s own limited use of feelings or attitudes uncritical about personal judgment tacit assumptions and responsiveness to specifics of feedback/situation

Ways of Inquiry

Developed: an account Perspective: a helpful interpretation or that reflects some analysis of the in-depth and importance/ personalized ideas; meaning/ the student is significance; tells a making the work clear and her own, going instructive story; beyond the given provides a useful there is supported history or context; theory here, but sees different levels insufficient or of interpretation inadequate argument or evidence

141

Explanation Naı¨ve: a superficial account; more descriptive than analytical or creative; a fragmentary or sketchy account of facts/ideas or glib generalizations; a black-and-white account; less a theory than an unexamined hunch or borrowed idea

Interpretation

Application

Literal: a simplistic or Novice: can perform only with coaching superficial reading; or relies on highly mechanical scripted, singular translation, a “plug-in” decoding with little (algorithmic and or no mechanical) skills, interpretation; no procedures, or sense of wider approaches importance or significance; a restatement of what was taught or read

Perspective

142

Table 3. (Continued ) Empathy

Self-Knowledge

Innocent: completely Uncritical: unaware of Egocentric: has little unaware of the or no empathy differing points of bounds of one’s beyond intellectual view; prone to understanding and awareness of others; overlook or ignore of the role of sees things through other perspectives; projection and own ideas and has difficulty prejudice in feelings; ignores or imagining other opinions and is threatened or ways of seeing attempts to puzzled by different things; prone to understand feelings, attitudes, egocentric argument or views and personal criticisms

Source: Katrin Becker [University of Calgary] Copyright (C) 2004 Katrin Becker May 5, 2004. http://www.minkhollow.ca/Main/Reference/ Rubric%20for%20the%20Six%20Facets%20of%20Understanding.htm

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

143

Ways of Inquiry

Data Analysis Reviewing the weekly student responses, I saw general progress from implicit student knowledge to explicit, from the cognitive to the metacognitive and also discerned changes in their understanding. Additionally, the manner in which students gradually began to dis-identify with some of the stereotypes they initially expressed during the first weeks of class indicated that learning was taking place and that the combination of IBL with the service learning component was a good formula for acquisition and learning to coexist. I scored each response paper with a numerical mark from 1 to 5, with 1 representing the bottom of the Wiggins & McTighe rubric on Six Facets of Understanding and 5 representing the upper quadrant. The class had 19 students with a 1 2 student degree of variance per week due to absence. I was able to measure the growing student independence from these stereotypes by grading how each week they worked through the various stereotypes in increasingly complex iterations in Spanish. The initial group of four response papers showed consistent lower quadrant scores with 15/19 students scoring within the “literal, uncritical, and egocentric” marker. Four students consistently scored in the upper quadrants from the start of the semester and maintained this trend throughout. The second group of four papers showed a gradual increase with eight students in the lower quadrants and seven students moving into the middle quadrant (score of 3, showing “thoughtful, aware, considered responses, and perspective”). The last group of four papers showed 17 students in the upper quadrants [3,4,5] and only 2 students in the lower [1,2]. Comparing the free-response papers from the first group to the last group showed trends in two areas: the amount of narrative and the tone of the writing. Students initially composed four to five sentences during the writing assignments the first four weeks. The writing was typified by use of simple grammar structures, reliance on cognates (illegal = ilegal, immigrant = inmigrante) to create simplified sentences that reflected the initial “retrieval & response” learning strategies. By the end of the semester, the last group of papers illustrated much longer narratives, with an average of eight to ten full sentences, all with a tone that demonstrated much of the target objectives located in the upper quadrant of Wiggins and McTighe: their responses to images of illegal immigrants crossing, for example, moved from “Ellos son ilegales. Son malos para los EEUU” [They are illegals. They are bad for the US.],

144

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

to narratives about why these people might have been on the move, what they were looking for and/or fleeing from, how they would survive the first couple of weeks, etc. This progression demonstrates the type of learning that the IBL and TPSL approaches soundly delivered in the semester. When the IBL approach is employed to push retrieval/response into the background, it allows for synergy between course content and linguistic practice.

Conclusions This intermediate Spanish INQ course empowered students as active learners. By indirectly questioning their foundational beliefs through the images and the free-response papers, I was able to gauge increased independence from Hispanic immigrant stereotypes that ultimately resulted in a group of students who were very self-reliant in their opinions on the content matter (as well as more confident in oral production). Ellis confirms that “[i]n the case of traditional approaches to language teaching, where the target language is perceived as an ‘object’ to be mastered by learning about its formal properties […] the teacher typically acts as a ‘knower/informer’ and the learner as an ‘information seeker’. In the case of innovative approaches where the emphasis is on the use of the target language in ‘social behaviour’ a number of different role relationships are possible …” (1994, p. 228). Ellis’s quote is right on target in the context of my Intermediate Spanish course. The differentiated instruction led to a shift in roles where students had more control over their learning (breaking down stereotypes on their own time) as well as multiple sources of information (via the service learning in the undocumented Hispanic community). The course theme was one that worked in combination with the community experience, and this unique blending of the two high-impact practices resulted in high levels of student learning. Not only about their course content, but also about themselves and their own personal worldview as it pertains to Hispanic identity and immigration.

NOTE 1. Anthropologists study material culture in order to ask how objects, their properties, and their make-up affect culture. See The Journal of Material Culture.

145

Ways of Inquiry

REFERENCES American Council of Teaching Foreign Languages. (2010). National Standards for Foreign Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/node/192 Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757 772). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chick, N. (2011). Faculty seminar, Oxford College of Emory University. 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. doi:10.1002/sce.10001 Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T. (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. Research report. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dunlap, N., & Martin, L. J. (2012). Discovery-based labs for organic chemistry: Overview and effectiveness. Advances in teaching organic chemistry (Vol. 1108, pp. 1 11, chapter 1). ACS Symposium Series. American Chemical Society. doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1108.ch001. Accessed on November 5, 2012. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erickson, H. L. (2007). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Heatherton, Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education. 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. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2). Article 16. Retrieved from http://digital commons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol3/iss2/16 Gowler, D., & Rogers, M. (2009). Ways of inquiry: A proposal for highlighting and strengthening the distinctiveness of our curriculum. Oxford College of Emory University, Internal document. Lawrie, G., Adams, D., Blanchfield, J., Gahan, L. R., & Weaver, G. (2009). CASPiE experience: Undergraduate research in the 1st year chemistry laboratory. Conference proceedings: Motivating science undergraduates: Ideas and interventions, October 1 2. UniServe Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney. Mauss, M. (1990). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Oxford, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3(1 2), 1 35. Perry, W. G., Jr., Harvard University, & Bureau of Study Counsel. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years; A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Russell, C. B., & Weaver, G.. (2008). Student perceptions of the purpose and function of the laboratory in science: A grounded theory study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 9. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons. georgisouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol1/iss2/9

146

JEFFERY GALLE ET AL.

Timmerman, B. E. C., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J. R. (2011). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 509 547. U.S. News & World Report. (n.d.). National University Rankings. Retrieved from http:// colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/ page+2. Accessed on July 29, 2014. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

TARGETING STUDENTS’ EPISTEMOLOGIES: INSTRUCTIONAL AND ASSESSMENT CHALLENGES TO INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION Maggie Renken, Carmen Carrion and Ellen Litkowski ABSTRACT Prior research has shown the effectiveness of inquiry education in increasing content knowledge and motivation. Improving learners’ epistemologies is an additional component that should be examined when considering inquiry effectiveness. The basis for students’ participation in inquiry-based science education (IBSE) is to emulate the scientific process in classroom learning and, by extension, to alter their scientific epistemologies. In this chapter, we discuss the challenges associated with the construction and assessment of IBSE. First, despite it being a

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 147 174 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001009

147

148

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

common underlying theoretical framework of inquiry units, assessments of learning outcomes rarely reflect a consideration of students’ changing epistemologies. Second, we examine whether inquiry practices in the classroom are constructed to alter students’ epistemologies. We integrate preliminary research findings from a week-long, researcher-taught ecology inquiry unit with urban adolescents, reporting on posttest assessments of students’ thoughts on sources of knowledge, their ecology content knowledge, and their understanding of the nature of science. While we expected this unit to foster learner epistemology, our results did not confirm our expectations. In fact, students who participated in the inquiry unit were outperformed by a comparison group matched on age and ethnicity in several unexpected areas relevant to learner epistemology. This chapter explores explanations of unexpected findings and recommendations for the future assessment and practice of inquiry couched in challenges associated with current challenges to instructing and assessing learner epistemology.

INTRODUCTION A range of inquiry-based curricula is available for use in the science classroom. Assessment of the learning outcomes associated with these curricula is varied, but the majority of prior research has assessed the effectiveness of IBSE in increasing students’ disciplinary content knowledge and motivation (Dias, Eick, & Brantley-Dias, 2010; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). While relevant for students’ future academic success, measures of content knowledge and motivation do not reflect students’ acquisition of an authentic understanding of the nature of science knowledge for instance, their understanding of the source or certainty of knowledge. Furthermore, assessing content and motivation outcomes alone is misaligned with most inquiry units, which often target the development of students’ sophisticated understanding of the nature of science knowledge (Sandoval, 2005). Advancing students’ understanding of the nature of science knowledge is a valuable learner outcome. As such, students’ understanding should be considered when measuring inquiry-based science education’s (IBSE) effectiveness; yet assessing this understanding poses a specific set of challenges. Prior attempts to assess the effectiveness of IBSE in promoting what may be broadly referred to as epistemic shifts have employed various methodologies, focusing on areas such as students’ understanding of science, their

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

149

ability to formulate and conduct experiments, and the types of epistemologies they bring to the classroom, if any (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Kuhn, 2010; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). In this chapter, we provide a framework for teaching to and assessing students’ science epistemologies during IBSE by: • highlighting the challenges associated with IBSE instruction targeting learners’ epistemologies, • delineating the challenges associated with IBSE assessment targeting learners’ epistemologies, • describing research findings that illustrate instruction and assessment challenges during a specific ecology inquiry unit, and • outlining recommendations for future research and practice.

BACKGROUND Learner Epistemologies Before highlighting the challenges associated with instruction and assessment, it is important to establish our conceptualization of learner epistemologies. Traditional study of personal epistemology centers on individuals’ beliefs about the nature and justification of knowledge and knowing. For psychologists and educational researchers, emphasis is placed on the individuals’ understanding of knowledge and its nature (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Of course, more nuanced conceptualizations vary; however, commonly recognized components of individuals’ understanding of knowledge and its nature center on the complexity of knowledge, its sources and justifications, and its degree of certainty (Chinn, Buckland, & Samarapungavan, 2011; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, 1990). Throughout the current chapter, we narrow our focus to students in a classroom setting and use the term learner epistemology rather than personal epistemology to clarify this context. By using the term learner epistemology we also aim to focus on students’ understanding of knowledge and the nature of knowledge they are acquiring within the science classroom, rather than on their understanding of science in the professional world. Such distinction has been made in prior work. For instance, Carey and Smith (1993) suggest a difference in students’ common sense epistemologies and formal constructivist epistemologies. According to this framing, formal constructivist epistemologies align with authentic science and are enforced in

150

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

science education curriculum. More recently, Sandoval (2005) defends two kinds of scientific epistemologies that further distinguish between authentic science and science education. Practical epistemologies are students’ conceptions of their own knowledge in the science classroom, while formal epistemologies are their ideas about the production of scientific knowledge by scientists. Hogan (2000) suggests a similar dichotomy referring to individuals’ proximal and distal knowledge of the nature of science. Finally, we have chosen to use the term learner epistemology in order to emphasize the close relation we acknowledge between knowledge acquisition and individuals’ epistemologies. This also is grounded in earlier work demonstrating learner epistemologies influence the strategies students use to construct new knowledge as well as inform the ways in which they evaluate competing knowledge claims (Hofer, 2001).

Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) With a definition of learner epistemology set, we must also clarify our conceptualization of IBSE. Over the past several decades, changes in state and national science standards have led to a shift from promoting students’ knowledge of scientific facts to promoting their deeper understanding of how to develop new questions, interpret data, and question existing theories (National Research Council [NRC], 2007, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). To encourage and promote this enhanced understanding, new teaching methods and curricula have been developed. One such method is IBSE. The primary aim of IBSE is to promote students’ understanding of the dynamic nature of science and to emphasize the critical thinking process inherent in scientific practice. In very general terms, to foster these ideas within science classrooms, inquiry units guide students through the scientific process so they may create and modify their own knowledge (Sadeh & Zion, 2012). Since its inception, IBSE has been implemented and evaluated across many different settings and with different populations and has produced varied outcomes with regard to effectiveness (Minner et al., 2010). A recent meta-analysis conducted by Minner et al. (2010) revealed that only 71 of the reviewed 138 inquiry studies demonstrated a positive impact, measured by improved student content learning and retention. That only approximately half of the inquiry units investigated supported improvements in content learning and retention demonstrates the need for further investigation and clarification. One possible explanation for reports of mixed effectiveness

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

151

may lie in a mismatch between epistemology-relevant instruction and assessments targeting content knowledge and motivation only. In what follows, we aim to discuss two primary concerns with the ways in which inquirybased learning and instruction is constructed and assessed with regards to learner epistemology. First, we will examine how inquiry practices in the classroom align with improvements in learner epistemology. Second, despite underlying theoretical emphasis on epistemologies in inquiry-based instructional design, assessments of learning outcomes rarely reflect an adequate consideration of students’ developing epistemologies. We will critically discuss epistemology assessment practices in relation to IBSE. We find this aim particularly relevant following the National Research Council’s recent report on aligning assessment practices with the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2012).

IBSE INSTRUCTION AND LEARNER EPISTEMOLOGIES Original conceptions of individual epistemology positioned a sophisticated epistemology juxtaposed to a less, or non-, sophisticated epistemology. For example, one may understand knowledge as fixed and certain or understand knowledge as changing, the latter being a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of knowledge. Alternatively, from a developmental perspective, the progression of epistemology culminates in the coordination of subjective and objective understandings of knowledge (Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000). An individual who understands knowledge to be wholly objective a less sophisticated understanding also espouses that knowledge comes from external sources, is all equally true, and thus requires no evaluation. Older children likely begin to view knowledge as subjective, believing that while two people may hold different positions, neither is more right than the other. With even further sophistication, an individual will view knowledge as subjective while acknowledging objectivity in that one person’s position may be more meritorious than another’s. As a result, with such epistemological sophistication, an individual will likely weigh knowledge, or evidence, before drawing his or her own conclusion. More specifically tied to science education, an alternative, but not contradictory, perspective is that a more sophisticated epistemology aligns with the authentic practices and understandings of scientists. However, in practice, scientists ask questions and make decisions about answering their

152

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

questions in context driven ways. As such, authentic scientific epistemology is greatly context-dependent; it may be a function of typical disciplinary practices, socio-political perspective, or available evidence, among other external factors. It follows that regardless of perspective, defining sophisticated epistemology is a complex undertaking. There is little surprise that this complicated construct allows for substantial barriers to its achievement through standard IBSE instruction. Despite difficulties characterizing sophisticated epistemology, motivation for attending to learner epistemology within the classroom setting stems, in part, from the idea that students’ knowledge acquisition may be impeded by their conceptions about knowledge itself. Students’ view of knowledge as certain or fixed can promote study techniques such as rote memorization of facts and equations, rather than encouraging critical thinking and more complex conceptual understanding of processes. In fact, many teaching methods currently in place assume that students possess sophisticated epistemological beliefs when in reality they do not (Hammer & Elby, 2003). Despite the evident importance of learner epistemology in acquiring knowledge within the science classroom, instructional strategies rarely explicitly address them. Rather than to explicitly instruct learner epistemologies, the purported basis for students’ participation in IBSE is to emulate the scientific process in classroom learning and, by extension, to enhance their scientific epistemologies (Carey & Smith, 1993). However, students’ oversimplification of the purpose of scientific experiments and the nature of scientific knowledge may serve as an epistemic barrier to the intended benefits of inquiry units (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). For instance, conceptual change difficulties may occur as a result of mismatch between students’ common sense epistemologies and the constructivist epistemology curricular goal (Carey & Smith, 1993). In other words, consistent findings regarding challenges in altering students’ inaccurate conceptions in science may be, in part, due to a learner epistemology in which all knowledge is subjective and none more right than any other. Rather than requiring evidence be weighed in order to draw, in this case, a new conclusion, such a learner epistemology allows for conflicting knowledge and thus no alteration of prior misconceptions. Instead of explicitly fostering sophisticated epistemologies, inquiry tasks often are not representative of authentic scientific inquiry. In fact, some argue that the cognitive processes involved in classroom inquiry tasks, including simple experiments, simple observations, and simple illustrations, are different than those used in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Beyond this distinction in the cognitive processes required

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

153

by authentic versus simple classroom inquiries, Chinn and Malhotra (2002) suggest the two are in opposition with regard to epistemology and that classroom inquiries may actually foster nonscientific epistemologies. Classroom inquiry tasks that target features of scientific reasoning such as controlling variables and generating explanations for acquired evidence may enforce learners’ understanding of science knowledge as simple, certain, and focused on observation. Moreover, simple inquiry tasks that provide students with a specific research question eliminate one of the key components of the authentic science process that is, the development of a research idea that specifically addresses a gap in a discipline’s extant literature (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Students provided with a research question may thus fail to develop the more sophisticated epistemological understanding that science knowledge can be constructed and is not solely obtained via external sources.

IBSE AND ASSESSMENT OF LEARNER EPISTEMOLOGIES Beyond challenges in instructing to learner epistemologies, the field continues to be vexed by challenges in measuring learner epistemologies. Many likely inaccurate assessments are currently in use (Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011; Renken, Chinn, Vargas, & Sandoval, 2014). One class of measurements has focused primarily on investigating students’ beliefs about formal science that is, what scientists do, how theories are formed, and how scientific knowledge accumulates (Sandoval, 2005). Though these types of beliefs are valuable to understand, they are not always representative of the beliefs that affect students’ learning in the science classroom (Sandoval, 2014). More broadly, research methodology for assessing individual epistemologies has included interviews, surveys, and open-ended explanations of decisions made in practice. Early interviews with undergraduates paved the way for surveys targeting common beliefs about knowledge and its nature. Schommer’s (1990) seminal study of undergraduates’ epistemological beliefs, upon which many later measures were based, has been criticized for assessing domain-general beliefs rather than targeting domain-specific beliefs. Of primary concern, measures grounded in a domain-general framework are not situated in necessary context. For instance, students likely complete such an interview or survey outside of the class setting or with no

154

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

specific scientific knowledge, discipline, or experience in mind. We expect, based on prior research demonstrating distinctions in practicing scientists’ views of the nature of science across disciplines, that the expectation for students to hold a domain-general view, or understanding, is unrealistic at best (Schwartz & Lederman, 2008). Beyond differences in understandings across scientific discipline, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear whether students conceptualize school science as aligning with authentic science. A domain-general assessment does not inform potential differences in learner epistemologies associated with school versus authentic science, and little research has aimed to address this distinction despite Sandoval’s call for research to do so almost 10 years ago (Sandoval, 2005). An additional concern with current approaches to assessing learner epistemologies is that students, especially primary and secondary students, may not possess adequate metacognitive or executive functioning skills for reflecting, considering, and reporting on their beliefs about knowledge. Students’ responses to such prompts are not likely to be accurate reports of their epistemological sophistication. Since surveys also do little to inform consideration of the context-dependency of learners’ epistemologies, some classroom research has shifted to collecting open-ended “decision” responses. With this approach, students explain their decisions for selecting certain scientific practices (e.g., control of variables or modeling an effect) or for drawing certain conclusions. In other words, students’ open-ended decision responses may range from: explaining how an answer is found, explaining why one answer is chosen over another, or explaining what prior knowledge is used to decide on a specific practice. Again, even though students are encouraged in such tasks to explain their thought processes, students may not have the requisite metacognitive abilities for reporting in a way that informs an authentic and accurate understanding of their epistemological sophistication. As a result, traditional and current assessment practices open vast gaps to be filled by researcher and instructor inference.

A CASE IN POINT: AN ECOLOGY INQUIRY UNIT WITH AN URBAN POPULATION In what follows, we illustrate a case in point drawn from a recent ecology inquiry unit with a group of urban middle school students to demonstrate evidence of some of the challenges in instructing and assessing learner epistemologies. We implemented a week-long, researcher-taught, guided ecology inquiry unit and collected post-intervention assessments of ecology

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

155

core knowledge, understanding of the nature of science, and thoughts on sources of science knowledge with students participating in the inquiry unit and a comparison group of students who did not participate in the inquiry unit. At the onset of the project, we expected the ecology inquiry unit to bolster students’ disciplinary core knowledge and lead to more sophisticated epistemology demonstrated by their understanding of the nature of science and thoughts on sources of knowledge.

The Ecology Inquiry Unit The ecology inquiry unit was written by an ecologist and an environmental educator (Kelsey & Steel, 2007). Two graduate student researchers led class for three hours and thirty minutes each day for four days. The graduate students who led the inquiry unit had completed university-level biology coursework and were familiar with the content knowledge that was taught to students. Following a typical IBSE approach, the curriculum requires students to ask testable questions, design appropriate methods for answering those questions, analyze and interpret data, and communicate results. Individual lessons address fundamental ecological principles within this inquiry approach. Each student was paired with another individual from class. No student worked individually. The student researchers spent 30 45 minutes introducing each inquiry lesson to the entire class. Following this introduction, students were divided into eight groups of two or three. Students completed a guided inquiry activity each day with a partner for two and half hours. After the daily inquiry activity, instructors chose four to five groups to present their findings to the entire group. In-class presentations were followed with a closing summary of the daily learning objectives led by the instructors. Within IBSE, the amount of information provided to students at the beginning of a unit may vary. For instance, in a confirmation inquiry all the necessary information for completing an activity is given to the student, while in a guided inquiry students are provided with a research question and receive focused, yet minimal assistance from their instructor(s) (Bell, Smetana, & Binns, 2005). The inquiry unit was comprised of five elements expected to promote scientific thinking or nature of science understanding: creating a hypothesis, revising a hypothesis, replicating experiments, and creating evidence-based arguments and explanations (Kuhn, 2010; Pluta, Chinn, & Duncan, 2011). Each day’s lesson centered on important science practices, both generally and in the field of ecology (see Table 1). For example, on Day 1, students

156

Table 1. Day

A Synopsis of Each Day’s Activities during the Inquiry Unit.

Inquiry Activities

Learning Objectives

Sources of Knowledge Incorporated in the Lesson

The students: • Collected invertebrates in the field • Observed invertebrates in class • Made both quantitative and qualitative observations to describe the invertebrate’s anatomy and behavior • Designed an experiment around the invertebrate that was collected

Direct Evidence After the lesson, the students should: • Acquire fundamental skills in scientific inquiry, • Experience of collecting specimens such as to distinguish between quantitative and • Quantitative and qualitative qualitative descriptions and participating in observations fieldwork • Understand and facilitate the steps needed to design, implement, and present a successful experiment

2

The students: • Classified invertebrates in several different ways and speculated on the value of scientific classification systems • Attended an interactive presentation led by a chemical ecologist from the Georgia Institute of Technology A visiting ecologist: • Explained the value of a research question and the importance of experimental design • Explained to students how he uses different types of evidence to show justifications for his results • Demonstrated real-world data collection and analysis using his authentic video data

After the lesson, the students should: • Be familiar with the Linnaean classification system • Better understand why scientists organize their research in specific systems • Better understand the importance of a strong research question and experimental design • Understand the application of methodologically working through a problem in a “real world” profession • Understand why different forms of evidence are used to justify and support results

Indirect Evidence • Linnaean classification system • Evidence found by an individual which is then passed on to others Multiple Sources • Fieldwork • Speaking with a scientist • Information out of a scientific journal or other text

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

1

The students: • Illustrated a food web incorporating higher-level predators • Drew a mural of different ecosystems

After the lesson, the students should: • Be familiar with the terms predator and prey • Understand how organisms are interrelated within an ecosystem • Demonstrate how predator prey interactions function similarly across different habitats

Disciplinary content knowledge (ecology) was explicitly taught during this lesson

4

The students: • Observed water collected from a stream (one upstream and one downstream sample) to identify differences in the two samples • Evaluate water clarity and used chemistry testing kits to quantify water quality and chemical composition • Introduced to controlled variables and the importance of controlled variables in scientific work • Used microscopes to identify any organisms that were seen in the water samples • Compared samples with classmates to find out if most pairs had similar water composition

After the lesson, the students should: • Better understand fieldwork conducted by stream ecologists • Understand the nature of random samples, controlled variables and scientific inference • Demonstrate skills in using scientific equipment • Recognize how repeated samples can support results

Direct Evidence • Water samples • Measuring components of each water sample • Weighting Different Sources of Evidence • Pairs comparing water sample compositions • Differences quantitative between qualitative observations

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

3

157

158

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

were introduced to general methods of qualitative and quantitative observation. They also were exposed to ecology-specific practices, namely collecting invertebrates in the field. Most activities in the inquiry unit involved gathering evidence from a variety of sources, including observations, experiments, and experts. We expected, following this emphasis, students in the inquiry unit would realize that science knowledge varies and comes from different sources; however, the different sources of knowledge were not explicitly addressed in instruction. Additionally, we hypothesized students completing the inquiry activities would demonstrate more disciplinary core knowledge than the comparison group because the students were actively using relevant content knowledge.

Participants Participants in the project were 37 students (ages 9 14, Mean = 11.92) from a summer enrichment program. Seventy-eight percent of participating students self-reported their race as African American, three percent as Hispanic American, three percent as Asian American, eight percent other, and seven percent chose not to answer. Fifty-six percent of the inquiry group participants reported their gender as female, while seventy-nine percent of the comparison group participants reported their gender as female. The summer enrichment program is university-run and serves children attending schools in which over half of the enrolled students come from low-income families. Title 1 schools receive federal funding because more than half of the students enrolled are low-income. Through the program, children receive educational assistance, exposure to art and music, and field trips to informal learning venues (e.g., zoo, aquarium, children’s museum, and museum of natural history); however, the program is not advertised as an educational intervention itself. Eighteen students were assigned to participate in a researcher-taught, ecology inquiry unit created by Kelsey and Steel (2007). Group counselors self-selected their groups to participate in the ecology inquiry unit. As a result, the 18 students assigned to the inquiry unit were in groups led by counselors who were middle school science and math teachers during the school year. Nineteen students served as a comparison group. Students in the comparison group were in groups led by counselors who were physical education and language arts middle school teachers during the school year. Although students were not randomly assigned to participate in the inquiry, students in the inquiry and comparison group were matched on age and ethnicity.

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

159

Assessment Items and Tasks One week following the inquiry unit, students in the inquiry and comparison groups completed a posttest in a group setting in a computer lab at the project site. Before describing the employed measures in detail, it is important to note that we chose to ascribe the current set of measures to learner epistemology, since as discussed above there are no current gold standards for assessing learner epistemology. In light of the challenges to assessment, in order to explore students’ understanding of science knowledge and its nature following the inquiry unit, we included: (1) items from a standard measure of nature of science that addressed control of variables in experimentation and the role of models in science and (2) a task requiring decisions about the best sources of knowledge in justifying how something is known. We expected this combination of items and tasks to allow a more rich and robust description of the relation between the inquiry unit and learner epistemology than one offered by using traditional, notably problematic, instruments. Furthermore, the measures used here required minimal reflection skills on the part of the student, were both domain-general and domain-specific, and were designed for use with students within our sample’s age range. Measures included 10 multiple-choice items selected from the AAAS Project 2061 Assessment Tool (see http://assessment.aaas.org/). Due to time constraints and our aims related to including varied measures, we were limited to five items on the interdependence of ecosystems and five items on the nature of science. The items from the AAAS Project 2061 Assessment Tool have been normed with a large sample of grade 6 8 students, item answer choices are aligned with specific common misconceptions, and relevant items may be selected and combined into a stand-alone test. Each individual item is validated as part of the long-term science education reform initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science before being published. Items addressing the interdependence of ecosystems assessed students’ ecology core knowledge. The five ecosystem items chosen assessed student understanding of population dynamics, predator prey interactions, and food web dynamics. Answer choices included misconceptions related to plants and animals competing for resources, how the size of prey population affects predators, and how the size of the predator population affects prey. For example, one of the misconceptions targeted was, “a change in the size of a prey population has no effect on its predator population.” All five items chosen for this measure align with the content knowledge that was taught during the inquiry unit. Recall the ecology unit was guided instructors specifically discussed food webs and the importance of food chains during

160

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

the inquiry unit and students completed a food web activity on Day 2. Additionally, instructors explained predator prey relations and how those interactions can affect an entire ecosystem. Items addressing the nature of science were expected to align with a formal epistemology. In other words, answers should reflect student understanding of the practice of authentic science. However, as mentioned above, it is unclear from such items whether answers reflect a student’s formal epistemology or practical epistemology, that is, one associated with school science rather than authentic science. Within the nature of science topic, we selected two subtopics. Of the five nature of science items, three addressed control of variables and two addressed the use of models in science. The control of variables subtopic explicitly aligned with inquiry unit activities (see Table 1). Additionally, each nature of science item corresponded with specific misconceptions (see Tables 2 4). For the modeling subtopic, food

Table 2. A Description of Each Misconception and Corresponding Nature of Science Items from the AAAS Project 2061 Assessment Tool (see http://assessment.aaas.org). Topic Controlled variables

Models

Misconception

NOS Item

Answer Choice

A. CVM015: If two variables change at the same time, one can learn about the effect of each variable on the outcome. B. CVM023: If two variables change at the same time, one can learn about the effect of at least one of the variables on the outcome. CVM028: A controlled experiment tests for the effect of variables that are held constant, not the variable that is allowed to change. CVM011: A given experiment tests for the effect of ALL related variables regardless of whether they are allowed to vary or are held constant. CVM026: A given experiment can test for the effects of everything that is included in the study, whether these variables are allowed to vary or held constant.

CV021003

C

CV021003

A&B

CV018002

A&C

CV018002

D

CV018002

D

MOM007: A model can only represent aspects of a phenomenon that are already known; it cannot be used to figure out new things (e.g., make an accurate prediction) about what is being represented. This still allows one person to use a model to communicate things he or she already knows about something to other people, even if they do not already know it.

MO028002

B&D

161

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

Table 3. Controlled Variables Misconceptions and Nature of Science Items that Correspond with Each Misconception from the AAAS Project 2061 Assessment Tool (see http://assessment.aaas.org). Item Topic

NOS Item #

Misconception CVM028

Misconception CVM011

Misconception CVM026

Controlled variables Controlled variables Controlled variables

CV018002

X

X

X

Misconception CVM023

Misconception CVM015

X

X

CV021003 CV023005

X

X

X

Table 4. Models Misconceptions and Nature of Science Items That Correspond with Each Misconception from the AAAS Project 2061 Assessment Tool (see http://assessment.aaas.org). Item Topic

NOS Item #

Misconception MOM007

Models Models

MO079001 MO028002

X

webs and classification systems were models illustrated as part of the inquiry unit, but instructors did not explicitly address them as scientific models. Next, the measure of students’ thoughts on sources of knowledge required students to read two fictitious students’ answers to three science questions (e.g., “How do you know plants grow?,” “How do you know the earth moves?,” and “How do you know dinosaurs lived on Earth a long time ago?”). Each fictitious student provided an answer that indicated his or her knowledge was derived from a direct or an indirect source of knowledge (Table 5). Direct sources of knowledge were based on some personal experience, saying, for instance, “I have seen ….” Indirect sources of knowledge included a teacher reading a book, an astronaut who has traveled to space, and an archaeologist who works in the field. Within fictitious student pairs, one student explained citing a direct source while the other student explained citing an indirect source. Participants were charged with evaluating the fictitious students’ answers and instructed to decide whether one answer was better than the other. If so, participants selected the better answer. If not, participants decided whether or not the answers could be made better. Each decision participants made was forced choice. Thus, evaluations of the fictitious students’ responses resulted in one of four pathways (Fig. 1).

162

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

Table 5.

Fictitious Students’ Answers to Three Science Questions.

Science Question “How do you know plants grow?” “How do you know the Earth is round?” “How do you know dinosaurs lived on Earth a long time ago?”

Direct Evidence

Indirect Evidence

“Plants grow because I’ve seen “Plants grow because my teacher the flowers in my front yard read a book about how flowers grow in the spring.” grow.” “Jessie knows the Earth moves “I know the Earth moves because because he’s seen the sun astronauts have seen it moving move in the sky.” from space.” “There were dinosaurs on “There were dinosaurs on earth earth because I’ve seen because scientists have found fossils, or dinosaur fossils, or dinosaur remains, in remains.” the places where dinosaurs lived.”

Question (Researcher): Is one answer better than the other? Answer (Student): Yes Question (Researcher): Which one is better? Answer (Student): refers to Indirect Source INDIRECT EVIDENCE (1)

Fig. 1.

Answer (Student): refers to Direct Source DIRECT EVIDENCE (2)

Answer (Student): No Question (Researcher): Is there a way to make the answers better?

Answer (Student): No CANNOT BE MADE BETTER (3)

Answer (Student): Yes CAN BE MADE BETTER (4)

The Four Paths of Explanation Evaluations Demonstrated with a Generic Question Format.

Students either indicated: (1) a preference for explanations citing indirect evidence, (2) a preference for explanations citing direct evidence, (3) a belief that the explanations could not be made better, or (4) a belief that the explanations could be made better. The task was designed to demonstrate students’ situated epistemology with regard to topic specificity. In line with prior developmental research, students with less sophisticated epistemology were expected to prefer explanations citing direct or indirect sources of evidence. An individual with a more sophisticated epistemology was expected

163

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

to acknowledge that answers were either good enough and could not be made better or could be made better, perhaps as a function of some weighing of evidence (e.g., the type of evidence and arguments employed).

Learner Outcomes Interdependence of Ecosystems Item Performance For the test of differences in overall ecosystems items, each item was scored correct (1) or incorrect (0) and mean scores were calculated. We conducted t-tests of independent samples to assess differences in individual mean scores for each of the five ecosystems items. There was no significant difference in performance across group for the items IE017006, IE074002, IE058002, and IE086001 (see Table 6). For Interdependence ecosystems item IE027005, however there was a significant difference in performance across the inquiry (see Fig. 2 and Table 6). This effect is contrary to expectation, with the comparison group demonstrating more accurate content knowledge than the inquiry group. Especially problematic is the poor performance of inquiry students on an item addressing food webs when the inquiry unit included a food web activity. It is important to note that this item included more complicated predator and prey relations than did the in-class activity. As a result of the mismatch in activity, and possibly of learner epistemology, students in the inquiry unit may have inappropriately applied their limited understanding in the new assessment context. Table 6.

Nature of Science Items Performance across Both Groups. df

t-Value

p-Value

Group Means

Group SD

I: .44 C: .61 I: .29 C: .88 I: .13 C: .00 I: .38 C: .71 I: .33 C: .29

I: .51 C: .50 I: .47 C: .33 I: .34 C: .00 I: .50 C: .47 I: .49 C: .47

NOS: CV018002

(1, 32)

.99

.33

NOS: MO079001

(1, 32)

4.22

< .001a

NOS: CV021003

(1, 33)

−1.6

.12

NOS: MO028002

(1, 31)

1.9

.06

NOS: CV023005:

(1, 30)

−.23

.82

a

The comparison group was significantly more likely than the inquiry group to answer this question correctly. I Inquiry Group; C Comparison Group.

164

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL. 70% 60%

% of students

50% 40% Comparison

30%

Inquiry Group Project 2061 Sample

20% 10% 0% Missing

Correct

B

Misconception IEM029

Misconception IEM021

Answer Choices

Fig. 2.

Student Performance on Eco Item: IE027005.

Nature of Science Item Performance We explored two approaches for analyzing student performance on Nature of Science items across groups. This allows us to point out inconsistencies in findings as a result of analytic approach. First, we considered mean scores across the five items, with correct answers scored as 1 and incorrect answers scored as 0. This approach aligns with a consideration of Nature of Science as a solitary construct influenced by participation in an inquiry unit. We then considered the proportion of correct answers on control of variables items and on modeling items separately. For the first test of differences in overall NOS performance, each item was scored correct (1) or incorrect (0) and mean scores were calculated. Across groups performance was low and varied widely, with scores ranging from 0% to 80% correct and a mean score of 36% correct (SD = 23.3%). A t-test of independent samples revealed the overall NOS score differed significantly across the inquiry (M(SD) = .28(.21)) and comparison groups (M (SD) = .45(.23)), t = 2.43, df = 35, p = .02, Cohen’s d = .80. As evidenced by the group means, the direction of this large effect contradicts our expectations, with the comparison group scoring higher on average than the inquiry group on NOS items (see Table 7). It is worth noting however that overall scores were low (below 50%) for both groups compared to the

165

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

Table 7.

Ecosystem Items, Performance across Both Groups. df

t

p-value

Group Means

Group SD

Eco: IE0170006

(1,30)

1.19

.24

Eco: IE074002

(1,32)

0

Eco: IE027005

(1,31)

2.12

.04a

Eco: IE058002

(1,31)

1.22

.23

Eco: IE086001

(1,31)

1.22

.23

I: .06 C: .2 I: .41 C: .41 I: .19 C: .53 I: .41 C: .63 I: .24 C: .44

I: .24 C: .41 I: .51 C: .51 I: .40 C: .51 I: .51 C: .50 I: .44 C: .51

1

a

The comparison group was significantly more likely than the inquiry group to answer this question correctly. I Inquiry Group; C Comparison Group.

standardized grade 6 8 sample collected and reported by AAAS Project 2061, M(SD) = .51(.22). As a second test of differences in NOS performance, mean performance on the three control of variables (CV) items (M(SD) = .27(.28)) and on the two modeling (MO) items (M(SD) = .51(.40)) were considered separately. For overall performance on CV items, a t-test of independent samples revealed there was no significant difference in performance across the inquiry (M(SD) = .26(.29)) and comparison (M(SD) = .28(.28)) groups, t = .23, df = 35, p = ns, Cohen’s d = .075. For overall performance on MO items, a t-test of independent samples revealed a significant difference in performance across the inquiry (M(SD) = .31(.35)) and comparison (M (SD) = .71(.35)) groups, t = 3.54, df = 35, p = .001, Cohen’s d = 1.16. The direction of the effect contradicts expectations, with the comparison group significantly outperforming the inquiry group on modeling items (see Table 6). While the overall NOS score indicated students in the comparison group demonstrated a more accurate understanding of the nature of authentic science than the inquiry group did, when performance was considered across two separate constructs, the inquiry and comparison group differed only in performance on modeling items and not on control of variables items. Recall the inquiry unit explicitly addressed control of variables, but only vaguely included scientific models. To further illustrate differences in item performance across the inquiry and comparison groups, Figs. 3 7 demonstrate trends across each of the five NOS items.

166

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL. 70%

% of students

60% 50% 40% 30% Comparison Group

20%

Inquiry Group 10%

Project 2061 Sample 1 n tio ep nc co M

is

co

nc

ep

tio

n

C

VM

01

8 02 C

VM

or re c is M

M

is

co

nc

ep

tio

n

C

C

M

is

VM

si

02

ng

8

t-C

0%

Answer Choices

Fig. 3.

Student Performance on NoS Item: CV018002.

70% 60%

% of students

50% 40% Comparison 30%

Inquiry Group Project 2061 Sample

20% 10% 0% Missing

A

B

Correct- C

D

Answer Choices

Fig. 4.

Student Performance on NoS Item: MO079001.

167

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies 70%

% of students

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Comparison

10%

Inquiry Group Project 2061 Sample t-D

5 VM

or re c

01

02 VM

n

C

C

C

tio ep nc co is M

M

M

is

is

co

co

nc

nc

ep

ep

tio

tio

n

n

C

M

is

VM

si

02

ng

3

3

0%

Answer Choices

Student Performance on NoS Item: CV021003.

Fig. 5.

70%

50% 40% 30% 20%

Comparison

10%

Inquiry Group Project 2061 Sample 00 7

is

co n

ce p

tio

n

M

O

M

C

00 7 M

M

M

is

co n

ce p

tio

n

C

M

or

O

re

is si

ct

-A

ng

0% M

% of students

60%

Answer Choices

Fig. 6.

Student Performance on NoS Item: MO028002.

168

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL. 70%

% of students

60% 50% 40% 30% Comparison

20%

Inquiry Group

10%

Project 2061 Sample D

6 VM C

is

co

nc

ep

tio

n M

M

is

co

nc

ep

tio

n

C

VM

02

1 01

t-A or re c C

M

is

si

ng

0%

Answer Choices

Fig. 7.

Student Performance on NoS Item: CV023005.

These figures include the standardized Project 2061 sample for comparison and reflect answer choices according to persistent misconceptions. Thoughts on Sources of Knowledge The thoughts on sources of knowledge measure allowed for students to fall into one of four pathways (Fig. 1). Few students followed pathway four, which was expected to indicate a belief that the explanations could be made better. Because pathway four was so rare, we combined pathways three and four for analysis. Next, to consider group differences in pathways, we fit multinomial logistic regression models with group as the predictor variable and pathway (1 3) as the outcome variable for each of the three topics: dinosaurs, plants, and earth. Results indicated no difference in pathway across group for the dinosaurs (χ2 = .51, df = 2, p = .78) and earth topics (χ2 = .09, df = 2, p = .96) (Figs. 8 and 9). For the plants topic, however, group membership was a significant predictor of pathway (χ2 = 8.87, df = 2, p = .01). As shown in Fig. 10, for the plants topic, students in the inquiry group were much more likely to select the direct evidence pathway (56.2%) than were students in the comparison group (33.3%), while students in the comparison group were much more likely to fall in pathway three or four (50%) than were students in the inquiry group (6.2%).

169

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies 60

% of students

50 40 30

Inquiry Group Comparison Group

20 10 0 Indirect Source

Direct Source

Multiple Sources

Students’ Pathway Membership for the Dinosaurs Passage.

Fig. 8.

60

% of students

50 40 30

Inquiry Group Comparison Group

20 10 0 Indirect Source Direct Source

Fig. 9.

Multiple Sources

Students’ Pathway Membership for the Earth Passage.

WHAT LIES AHEAD: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH In our review of barriers to instructing toward a sophisticated learner epistemology, we cite inadequate scaffolding, missing explicit instruction, and limited motivation or abilities for students to reflect on their epistemologies

170

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL. 60

% of students

50 40 30

Inquiry Group Comparison Group

20 10 0 Indirect Source Direct Source

Fig. 10.

Multiple Sources

Students’ Pathway Membership for the Plants Passage.

while engaging in science. The common thread throughout these barriers is a need for explicit epistemology-relevant instruction. In order to address sophisticated epistemologies, IBSE curricula should include opportunities to make thinking about knowledge and the nature of knowledge explicit. In our own ecology unit, the scaffolding researchers provided by aligning daily activities with specific sources of science knowledge was not explicit enough for students to recognize and develop a sophisticated appreciation for the context-dependent value of different sources of knowledge. Instead, we found our implicit scaffold actually encouraged a less sophisticated epistemology among inquiry students compared to a noninquiry group. It is not a revolutionary notion to suggest students need appropriate scaffolds to help them synthesize what they are learning from the inquiry unit and how it applies to authentic science practice; however, the area of learner epistemology may be a particularly important and most oft-overlooked area in need of such scaffolding. Of course, by considering what type of epistemologies a learner brings to the classroom, appropriate scaffolds can be implanted to assist students in developing a more sophisticated epistemology and understanding of science. Unfortunately, we were unable to collect pretest data in the project reported here. Pretest data would have enabled us to identify learner epistemologies before beginning the inquiry unit. Without formal pretest data, it was still clear that many of the students had no, or little, prior experience thinking about science knowledge, its nature, and the specific scientific

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

171

discipline, ecology. Without prior experiences and knowledge, many students in the inquiry unit were apprehensive to begin conducting their own experiments. Assessing and acknowledging such limitations in advance allows for the careful planning of scaffolding and explicit instruction throughout an inquiry unit. Our report of the findings of a practical case of an ecology inquiry unit is not without its own limitations. We acknowledge that the sample we report on here was not randomized and was relatively small. This study was conducted with the voluntary cooperation of the program counselors who assigned students to a particular group. Additionally, this inquiry unit does not necessarily parallel with most classroom inquiry units. Students were engaged in the unit for two and a half hours for one week out of the summer. While this may not mirror all classroom-based inquiry units employed during the school year, it was a sufficient amount of time to see significant differences in the posttest performance of students in the inquiry versus control group. Although outside the scope of this chapter, the social dynamics of each group may have influenced the findings reported here. The inquiry group was 50% female while the comparison group was 75% female. Unfortunately, the sample size is too small to meaningfully parse out gender differences. Despite limitations, the outcomes of the ecology inquiry unit shed light on assessing epistemology in the IBSE context. One explanation of the poor performance on test items may be that the selected Project 2061 test items are especially difficult for our urban after school sample relative to standard performance reported by Project 2061. The distinction across modeling and control of variables items suggests the items we gave students were not out of reach that is, performance was not at floor across all five items. The distinction across modeling and control of variables items also suggests that rather than consider nature of science understanding as a single construct, multiple constructs may exist and are not necessarily correlated. With regard to the thoughts about sources of knowledge measure, the plants topic task best aligned with the inquiry unit’s ecology topic and was the only topic with significant differences in pathway by group. Perhaps most interestingly, after participating in the inquiry unit, students were much more likely to select indirect or direct evidence as best explanations rather than indicate the two explanations were equally good or could be made better. This was not the case for the comparison group. This was also not the case for the dinosaurs and earth topics. An explanation for this finding, consistent with prior suggestions (cf. Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), is that

172

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

the ecology inquiry unit’s emphasis on data collection, observation, and experimentation skewed students’ epistemologies to prefer direct evidence. Of course, with only three topics assessed and only one of these overlapping with the inquiry content, additional research is necessary before making broad claims regarding the domain-specificity of epistemologies. It is possible that the plant topic functions differently not because of inquiry students’ familiarity with the topic, but rather as a function of its ease of observation relative to the other topics. Regardless, this finding is particularly provocative for considering the impact of IBSE on learner epistemology. Instructors should be cognizant of students’ unexpected developments in learners’ epistemologies during instruction. Further, researchers should be cognizant of the situated nature of learner epistemologies.

CONCLUSION Overall, concerns with current practices for instructing and assessing learner epistemologies are supported by empirical results from a recent ecology inquiry unit and are informative for the enhancement of future inquirybased teaching and learning environments. Learner epistemologies are foundational to science learning and if fostered may contribute to other IBSE-relevant outcomes, such as content knowledge, motivation, and interest. In order to foster learner epistemologies, the development of effective assessment methods of students’ epistemological understanding will be necessary in tandem with the development of inquiry tasks that promote more authentic scientific epistemologies.

REFERENCES Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30 33. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235 251. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141 167. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 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. doi:10.1002/sce.10001

Targeting Students’ Epistemologies

173

Dias, M., Eick, C. J., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2010). Practicing what we teach: A self-study in implementing an inquiry-based curriculum in a middle grades classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 53 78. doi:10.1007/s10972-010-9222-z Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53 90. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3 Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353 383. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88 140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088 Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51 70. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001) 84:1 < 51::AID-SCE5 > 3.0.CO;2-H Kelsey, K., & Steel, A. (2007). Ecology by Inquiry. Retrieved from www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ education Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551 578. doi:10.1002/tea.10036 Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810 824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395 Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309 328. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00) 00030-7 Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137 151. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2010.01.001 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 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 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. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486 511. doi:10.1002/ tea.20415 Renken, M., Chinn, C., Vargas, P., & Sandoval, W. (2014). Exposing and assessing epistemic thinking. In: Proceedings of 11tth annual international conference of the learning sciences. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831 848. doi:10.1007/ s11165-011-9222-9 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634 656. doi:10.1002/sce.20065

174

MAGGIE RENKEN ET AL.

Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383 387. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369 392. doi:10.1002/tea.10081 Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345 372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130 Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498 504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498 Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727 771. doi:10.1080/09500690701225801

STRATEGIES FOR EMBEDDING INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING IN BOTANIC GARDENS: EVIDENCE FROM THE INQUIRE PROJECT Elaine Regan, Asimina Vergou, Suzanne Kapelari, Julia Willison, Justin Dillon, Gail Bromley and Costantino Bonomi ABSTRACT Botanic gardens represent a significant educational resource often acting as major providers of a diverse range of formal and informal education programs for people of all ages and backgrounds. INQUIRE was a three-year project focusing on inquiry-based science education (IBSE) that involved 17 partners in 11 European countries that aimed to reinvigorate IBSE in the formal and Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) educational contexts in Europe. This chapter presents a case study of successful practices for embedding inquiry-based teaching and learning in

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 175 199 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001010

175

176

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

botanic gardens. IBSE training courses were developed, piloted, and run. The study based on a qualitative evaluation strategy centers on the examination of the INQUIRE partners’ design, implementation and delivery of their IBSE teacher/educator training courses. The findings show that the courses had a positive impact on the participants who learned both theoretical and practical aspects of implementing IBSE in school and LOtC contexts (www.inquirebotany.org) and strong indications of good quality course provision across the project. A greater appreciation of botanic gardens as a learning resource was also noted. The project resulted in significant professional development outcomes and the key factors for success are discussed here. Consequently, this chapter presents evidence from IBSE in action in botany-related topics and provides a strong case for IBSE in botanic gardens.

INTRODUCTION Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) is probably most frequently defined as an approach to teaching science which engages students in the same sorts of activities, practices, and thinking processes that scientists use in their work. The National Research Council (NRC) sums up the benefits of inquiry approaches to teaching and learning science as follows: When engaging in inquiry students … identify assumptions, use critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way students actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills. (National Research Council, 1996, p. 2)

Current science education reform initiatives propose fundamental changes in how science is taught and in how teachers are supported to engage in alternative ways of science teaching. Stemming from Europe Needs More Scientists (European Commission, 2004) and Education NOW: A renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe (Rocard et al., 2007), the use of IBSE is currently one of the favored strategies in North America and Europe to achieve this in and out of school (Le´na, 2009; Rocard et al., 2007). This approach has been shown to increase students’ science conceptual learning, especially when it involves hands-on experiences with scientific phenomena and when students are encouraged to actively think and participate in the investigation process (Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010).

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

177

Moreover, there is mounting evidence that LOtC can stimulate students’ motivation in learning more about the world around us as well as supporting them to develop a wide range of skills (Osborne & Dillon, 2007; Rickinson et al., 2004). This is particularly important in a time of reported decreasing connectedness with nature (Bragg, Wood, Barton, & Pretty, 2013; Louv, 2006). However, the evidence suggests that significant professional development (PD) is required for IBSE, particularly in the enactment of inquiry in classrooms, due to the complex and sophisticated nature of the approach (Capps, Crawford, & Constas, 2012). Teachers need opportunities to participate in a variety of PD experiences that foster an understanding of science and inquiry-based science teaching. There is a growing awareness of alternative ways of facilitating teachers’ PD (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007) and it was against this background that the INQUIRE project was conceived. A pan-European consortium developed, implemented, and evaluated (at individual and project level) IBSE training courses in botanic gardens (and to a lesser extent in Natural History Museums) targeting teachers and LOtC educators in 11 countries in Europe,1 see Fig. 1. Botanic gardens, as “institutions holding documented collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific research, conservation, display and education” (Wyse Jackson, 1999, p. 27) and staffed by people with a range of scientific expertise, constitute excellent sites for IBSE. As Le´na (2011)

Fig. 1.

INQUIRE Partners across Europe.

178

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

suggests scientists can help communicate an authentic and lively vision of science and they can also develop resources and coach teachers in order to support and promote IBSE. Moreover, within their scientific work, the garden staff can offer opportunities to the public to contribute to plant science and practice inquiry-based skills: for an example see Graham, Henderson, and Schloss (2011). It is important to note that most botanic gardens also have a mandate to educate students and the public, at all levels, about the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Considering that the world faces “an unprecedented plant diversity crisis” and “climate change seems to rapidly have become recognised as the primary threat to many plants” (Schulman & Lehva¨virta, 2011, p. 218), the INQUIRE course sought to link IBSE to two contemporary areas of scientific enquiry and debate: biodiversity and climate change. Although research is increasingly clear that LOtC is associated with several positive outcomes such as more engagement in learning and higher levels of academic achievement (Malone, 2008; Rickinson et al., 2004), learning at botanic gardens in particular remains sparsely documented in science education research literature (Sanders, 2007). In addition, botanic gardens as well as other LOtC institutions often offer a wide range of educational programs with formal curricular links but they may not evaluate their programs in great detail (Phillips, Finkelstein, & Wever-Frerichs, 2007). Studies about the effectiveness of teaching and learning programs offered by botanic gardens are also rare (Sanders, 2007). As a result botanic gardens have difficulties sharing their understanding of teaching and learning with each other and the broader educational community. We should now expect that botanic garden education programs endeavor to reflect the latest best practice methodologies in their education provision. This chapter documents successful practices for embedding inquiry-based teaching and learning in botanic gardens. It is based on a study of the INQUIRE partners’ design, implementation, delivery of their IBSE teacher-training courses, and the formative and summative evaluation conducted by the team from King’s College London.

IBSE UNDERSTANDING IN THE INQUIRE PROJECT In order to recognize when inquiry is taking place, the NRC put forward five “features,” which they suggest are essential for identifying scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 2000, p. 25), an Inquiry Science

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

179

Indicator Checklist was developed by the KEW team based on these features for use in the project (see Appendix B). These are: 1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions. 2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. 3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. 4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. 5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. Acknowledging that there is no single definition of IBSE, the INQUIRE project also recognised that there is equally no single way to teach it. As Levy, Lameras, McKinney, and Ford (2011) suggested IBSE should be developed as a “flexible pedagogy” which allows teachers to tailor their approach based on the expected learning outcomes and different circumstances in the classroom. INQUIRE through its PD courses promoted the idea that IBSE activities can vary from being more structured to less structured depending on the degree of support to students’ inquiries provided by the teacher (see also Alake-Tuenter et al., 2012; Windschitl, 2003). In doing so, the project aimed to overcome a common misconception that IBSE requires minimum input or support from the teacher which means that teachers cannot direct students when they are engaged in inquiry-based activities (see Dillon, 2012).

THE INQUIRE PROJECT Funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme Science and Society INQUIRE, inquiry-based teacher-training for a sustainable future, was a collaborative 3-year project connecting formal and informal education systems and the science education research community utilizing recommendations on best practice in PD (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Timperley et al., 2007). Overall, the project aspired to introduce IBSE in formal and informal settings on a large scale; snowball best practice pedagogical approaches through practitioner training; and use IBSE to engage young people in a scientific discourse about biodiversity conservation and climate change. The consortium comprised a management team (MT) and

180

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

botanic garden2 partners. The MT supported partners in the development of the IBSE courses and provided expertise and training to develop their understanding of IBSE, reflective practice, and evaluation. In addition to discussions online using the platform Glasscubes, the INQUIRE consortium met on five occasions during the project in different participating countries to experience a range of botanic garden learning environments and to learn about the culture and practices of each partner country. At these 3-day meetings partners focused on teaching methods, course structure and variation, assessment of IBSE, reflective practice, and course evaluation. A complete account of these meetings and the lessons learned from them can be found in the work of Kapelari and Regan (2013). In addition to the formative feedback and evaluation undertaken by the MT, a summative evaluation was also conducted (Regan & Dillon, 2013). The INQUIRE concept was based on four major principles identified in the literature as important factors for successful PD (Kapelari, Vergou, Willison, Regan, & Dillon, 2012) which guided the learning process within the project. • Principle 1: Experience first what should be applied later. Luft (2001) explains that by participating in an experience, teachers and educators can understand the student’s perspective of the lesson and the instructional process surrounding its implementation. • Principle 2: Collect evidence to improve your practice. It is important that teachers reflect on their own practices by collecting evidence through various methods, such as portfolios of evidence and reflective diaries, which will document the impact of their inquirybased teaching on students’ engagement and learning (Lotter, Singer, & Godley, 2009). • Principle 3: Take your time for learning. Akerson and Hanuscin (2007) suggest that some of the characteristics of successful teacher development models include providing enough time for the participants to acquire new perspectives in teaching, practicing, getting feedback and sustaining their new skills. • Principle 4: Communicate results. Activities that encourage professional communication among teachers have been reported as a factor supporting change in teaching practice (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The INQUIRE project set the training course offer at 60 hours, with teaching at the LOtC site, self-study by participants, the development and delivery of an IBSE activity by participants both in the school and at

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

181

the LOtC site, and the production of portfolios of evidence by the participants. As an illustrative example, KEW’s course structure and content of the opening sessions can be viewed in Table 1. Overall, the courses focused on a wide variety of investigative work and “hands-on experiments” with living organisms, using a nature-based setting to motivate children between Table 1.

Example of the Structure and Content of INQUIRE Course KEW, UK.

Hours

Program

12 6 11 15 16 60 Hours 6

2 days training 1 day class visit 4 training evenings 15 hour assignment and presentation evening/day 16 hour self-study and ICT Total Session Type

Content Overview

Onsite training day 1

Introduction to the course. Introduction to IBSE past and present. Activity: Simple IBSE activity and classroom resource decomposition of strawberries. Activity: Plant variation and classification activities including IBSE building knowledge of biodiversity. Enrichment lecture on “Ex situ and in situ conservation and rates of extinction.” Critique IBSE Advantages and Disadvantages

Self-study 6

Onsite training day 2

Self-study 3

Onsite twilight evening 1

Self-study

Introduction to the day. Activity: TO SAVE OR NOT TO SAVE emphasizing biodiversity loss, requirement for sustainable living, and conservation problems. Activity: Basic IBSE Questioning Skills. Tissue culture technique development and IBSE activity design. Enrichment lecture on “Micro propagation in conservation”. Sustainability or climate change? Activity: Sampling as a full IBSE activity. How to measure abundance of a species in a large area. Activity: Reflection on practice. Activity: Enlarging the IBSE investigation. How can we measure the effect of climate change on the study area? Enrichment lecture on “Phenology in relationship to climate change studies daffodils/KEW data”. Critique a poorly designed IBSE lesson or redraft a standard lesson activity into an IBSE version

182

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

8 and 13 years which, according to Osborne and Dillon (2008) is the best period in which to achieve engagement with science. Courses comprised modules for teachers and LOtC educators on inquiry-based methods and reflective practice. In between workshops teachers were encouraged to bring their students to visit the LOtC site and experience IBSE, a further example from the Italian partner is shown in Table 2.

METHODS The findings presented in this chapter emerged from the study of all INQUIRE PD courses developed and implemented in a variety of contexts (national, local, and political), see Table 3. The analytical approach is based on a qualitative evaluation strategy: coding using the work of Miles and Huberman (1994) with a particular focus on Guskey’s (2000) PD framework. Guskey’s framework offers a particularly helpful hierarchy for gauging impact within the evaluation of PD. Level 1 (participants’ reactions) is the most common and easily collectable form of evaluative evidence despite often being impressionistic and highly subjective. Questions addressed at this level include whether the participants enjoyed the course and thought it was useful, and whether it addressed their needs. Level 2 addresses participants’ learning from PD (knowledge and skills), such as cognitive, affective, or behavioral. PD may also result in renewed commitment of teachers as change agents, which is crucial to teacher effectiveness. Guskey’s third level of evaluation concerns organizational support and change without which PD programs are unlikely to have a lasting effect. Organizational level outcomes and support are important parts of PD evaluation since they impact upon motivation on and sustainability of change. When a PD program is directly intended to change practice, it is essential to evaluate whether participants are actually using the new knowledge and skills acquired. Level 4: participants’ use of new knowledge and skill addresses this area. Lastly, given the centrality of student outcomes to educational endeavors some consideration of this factor is imperative in any evaluation of PD. The fifth level identified by Guskey is the impact of PD on student learning. This can be defined and measured in a number of ways, one distinction being between cognitive outcomes, such as attainment, and noncognitive outcomes such as attitudes. The variety of data sources is summarized in Table 4 and was collected by King’s College London as part of the support provided for partners and

Title of Module Content

Example of the Structure and Content of INQUIRE Course

MUSE, Italy.

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Theoretical background

IBSE case studies

Creative workshop

Testing and reporting

2. The effects of climate change: an interdisciplinary study

Creative workshop: individually and in small groups participants create their own IBSE activity with the use of the world cafe´ method. Small groups and plenary analysis to review the workshop products: suggestions and comments to improve them

Trial in school or in LOtC setting of the IBSE activity designed during the creative workshop. Individual and MUSE staff assisted evaluation of the effectiveness of the activity. Write up of a final report containing a description and assessment of the activity

MUSE staff

Course participants and MUSE staff

Lectures on theory and practice of IBSE for biodiversity conservation and climate change

Modeling and trialing IBSE activities in LOtC 1. Sustainable development of a ski resort and plant extinction Resource available at: www. plantscafe.net

Who

Two external lecturers

Resource available at: www.icleen.museum. Analysis and discussion MUSE staff

Where

MUSE

MUSE, botanical garden

MUSE

Chosen by participants

When

1st meeting (14.10.11) and 2nd meeting (17.10.11)

3rd meeting (22.10.11), 4th meeting (05.11.11) and 5th meeting (13.02.12)

6th meeting (09.03.12) and 7th meeting (23.03.12)

8th meeting (04.05.12) and 9th meeting (07.05.12)

183

Note: Self-study continuous. Content: background reading and research to prepare the workshop products for a practical trial, online analysis of workshop products, and trial reports via forums, blogs, web 2.0.

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

Table 2.

184

Table 3.

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

Overview of INQUIRE Courses (Run between 2011 and 2012 and 2012 and 2013) 28 Courses.

Pilot and Final INQUIRE Course

Primary School Teachers

Secondary School Teachers

Educators

Trainee Teachers

Other

Total

Austria LFU Italy MUSE UK KEW Spain CSIC & UAH Germany UniHB & BGRHB Bulgaria UBG Belgium NBGB Germany SBZH France BORD Portugal FCTUC Russia MSU Norway NHM Portugal UL

8 14 2 9 0 9 9 0 10 0 1 25 0

5 18 20 40 26 14 4 28 33 28 26 0 31

17 40 13 6 4 4 17 8 16 8 2 2 8

0 0 0 0 46 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 2 4 1 1 2 2 9 0 0 0 0

33 72 37 59 77 28 33 38 68 36 29 27 39

Total

87

273

145

47

24

576

for the evaluation (formative and summative). In this chapter we present a synthesis of the evaluation from the INQUIRE project in order to illustrate the strategies used to embed inquiry-based teaching and learning in botanic gardens. The synthesis includes data drawn from all sources, and where appropriate we include quotes from raw data, but given that English was not the first language of the majority of our partners, comments have been summarized rather than quoted verbatim in most cases. Where quotes are inserted, the referencing shows the partner country name, followed by the data source. For instance, (KEW, R1) indicates a quote taken from a Round 1 interview with KEW partner, or (FCTUC, POE) indicates an extract or summary from the portfolio of evidence produced by the Portuguese partner in Coimbra, or (Deliverable 4.2) refers to evidence drawn from the project Deliverable 4.2.3

FINDINGS As shown in Table 3, 28 courses based on a broad common framework ran over the course of the project showcasing a variety of PD and IBSE

Data Source Interviews

Description Semi-structured interviews with partner teams (n = 14) Semi-structured interviews with partner teams (n = 14)

Artefacts

Materials from partner meetings Other artefacts from project planning and reflection

Portfolios of evidence

Fieldnotes

Provide a written commentary that explains the role of the artefacts and the evidence of course evaluation

Semi-structured interviews after PIC as a formative discussion about feedback and evaluation Semi-structured interviews after the final INQUIRE course as a discussion of the course evaluation and outcomes from the project

To assess how partners have modified their materials to develop IBSE lessons in LOtC settings, in response to support and evaluation Provide insights into the reflective cycle processes, the development of a shared understanding of IBSE, the contribution to the community of practice, and the professional learning Provides insights into critical reflection, professional learning, and influences of the course

Descriptions of events

Provide additional data to explore the design, implementation, and evaluation of the INQUIRE courses

Monitoring the implementation of the INQUIRE project

Provide additional data to explore the design, implementation, and evaluation of the INQUIRE courses

185

Project deliverables

Evidences are collections of artefacts that show partners’ work and participants’ learning Fieldnotes from support visits, partner meetings, and INQUIRE conference Submitted deliverables to the EU as part of the project

Interviews exploring reflective practice, evaluation, and progress with Pilot INQUIRE course (PIC) implementation Interviews exploring reflective practice, evaluation, issues with final course implementation, and personal gains from taking part in the project Posters outlining plans for course structure, evaluation, lesson, and session plans Additional artefacts such as documents prepared as part of project tasks and deliverables

Purpose

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

Table 4. Description of Data Sources.

186

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

activities. The findings of the study presented here emerged from a comparison of all programs around two research questions: how does the INQUIRE course contribute to the development of science teaching in the consortium, and how does the project affect botanic gardens’ ability to support IBSE in LOtC settings? We also discuss the barriers experienced.

Contribution of the INQUIRE Course to the Development of Science Teaching The INQUIRE project has contributed to the development of science teaching within the consortium, evidenced in the range and quality of the course material prepared, resulting in predominantly positive feedback from course participants with strong indications of changing practice noted across the European partners. This has largely been a result of the use of practical activities within the gardens that allowed teachers and educators to trial IBSE in LOtC settings and in their own classrooms. These strategies on the course were most successful in increasing IBSE knowledge and skills because they could be used immediately or act as sources of inspiration for adaptation. It’s really positive, very enthusiastic, just take body language, they are practically skipping out at the end of each day, they are excited, interested, engaged, suggestive, you know, wanting to be part of it all. (KEW, R1)

Participants’ Views of the INQUIRE Courses All INQUIRE courses were structured around demonstrating IBSE activities and lesson plans, in fact encouraging participants to try the activities, modify the activities, create their own IBSE activities for use in gardens or outdoors spaces, and evaluate and reflect on the activities, see Tables 1 and 2. This proved to be a valuable process resulting in increases in positive attitudes towards IBSE, confidence in using IBSE, and changes to course participants’ teaching practices. The climate game with the ice melting, that is a very good example I think to show what IBSE is … it became clear what IBSE was when I did that experiment … I think with many teachers it opened their eyes as well … Well, it makes clear that IBSE is not only a hands-on activity, but that it’s really an activity where children have to think or develop an experiment by themselves … I also think that with this activity it is possible to show things in a relatively short time. You don’t need the time of letting plants grow or whatever, it’s just 20 minutes and you have gone all through the programme of IBSE. (NBGB, R2)

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

187

The enthusiasm for inquiry-based approaches instilled within the INQUIRE courses also led to increased levels of science LOtC, with many examples described or presented in portfolios and at the INQUIRE conference, see vignette in Table 5 for an educator’s reflections on learning to become an IBSE practitioner. Our activities in the garden were huge sources of knowledge for us. We learned a lot about botany; either with the trainer or placing ourselves in the role of the students during the development of the activities, or in friendly discussion with the other trainees. (Educator from FCTUC, Deliverable 4.4, p. 7) IBSE activities were a new area for me but one that I found engaging and interesting. This technique makes for a very interactive and engaging learning environment in the classroom. (Educator from KEW, Deliverable 4.5) The practical sessions gave me a feel for the differences between INQUIRE activities and ordinary excursions, and it’s really great! (Teacher from MSU, Deliverable 4.4, p. 7)

In terms of Guskey’s model of PD, this accounts for level 1 impact: that is, participants were satisfied with the course and reactions to it were positive.

Table 5. Vignette: A Teacher’s Reflections on Learning to be an IBSE Practitioner (KEW, POE). At the beginning of our course we were each asked to submit a lesson plan around biodiversity, climate change, or conservation. I prepared an overview, a lesson plan, and a set of teacher notes in October, before work had begun on transforming the lesson plan into an IBSE format. In my first IBSE session at the botanic garden I used a modified lesson plan and set of information sheets for students with two trainee teachers from our school. They were all asked to comment on the lesson and to suggest improvements. I have included their critiques in my portfolio. I used these to make further amendments to the initial lesson plan and delivered it to 60 Year 5 pupils (9 years old) from Greenhills Primary School as part of their day at the botanic garden. I was generally very pleased with the way the day went. I decided to do three main activities rather than our usual five or six to allow more time for the students to discuss and reflect on what they learnt. This was definitely the right decision. I feel that the day embraced the IBSE criteria covered on the INQUIRE course and took into account the additional points suggested for consideration when planning an IBSE activity and/or day visit. I was impressed with how confident the older students were in expressing their views, opinions, and reflections. It was heartening to see some of the quieter members of the class growing in confidence during the day, and how the various group members cooperated with each other. The course has definitely made me reflect on the way I devise, plan, and deliver activities.

188

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

Participant Learning Participation in INQUIRE courses led to increased engagement with outdoor learning environments, since many teachers had never visited a botanic garden. As a result of the courses, they learned to be confident with the botanic garden as an outside space for teaching and to develop their own IBSE lessons using gardens and outdoor spaces. Because the courses addressed some of the common misconceptions about IBSE, such as “doing hands-on science is the same as inquiry” or “you need lots of time to do IBSE” or “you can’t assess inquiry,” the course participants themselves felt that their knowledge and practice improved. For instance, the KEW team used the short IBSE activity entitled “Decomposition strawberry,” which can be found in the activity resource manual on the website, to address the misconception that “you need lots of time to do IBSE.” It also showed how new content could be learned in the process but also that content is not always the prime aim of an IBSE activity. In addition to theoretical, pedagogical, and subject knowledge gains (biodiversity and climate change), confidence in using IBSE and reflective practice techniques also increased. In terms of Guskey’s model of PD, this accounts for level 2 impacts: that is, the teachers and educators learned new knowledge and skills. Since attending the INQUIRE course I have expanded the range of lesson topics, made broader use of reflective practice by the students themselves and organized my teaching around scientific research. … Due to a lack of specialized equipment I have devoted much of my lessons to debating, gathering and evaluating facts, planning experiments and constructing hypotheses. I have begun suggesting that students conduct independent research as part of their homework, including tasks such as observation, planning experiments, problem analysis, preparation of questions for debate and creative work (such as writing scenarios, stories, crosswords and presentations). (Teacher, INQUIRE conference proceedings)

As a result of the time allocated to development and reflection within the tasks set and project meetings, partners were afforded ample opportunities that enabled reflection on and evaluation of their professional practice. Partners reported that their PD as educators was positively affected through involvement in the courses. What I gained from being part of the project is the friendship and the community of practice from the other national partners. Before, I had to do all these things by myself. Now, we can have botanic discussions and reflective practice and it’s another way of organising my work and organising things that we develop for the garden. (NBGB, R2)

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

189

Changing Science Teaching Practices Changes to science teaching practices were observable in many partner institutions and within the participants’ practices in their schools and gardens, such as altering existing lesson plans for their school groups to make them more open and IBSE focused, or devising new lesson plans that focused specifically on both an inquiry-based approach and biodiversity/ climate change topics. We have noticed that they have changed their way to do things a little bit and also they want to change the activities and the lesson plans we use and so on to implement more the inquiry-based learning, so they are more aware of this methodology. (CSIC/UAH, R2) Garden educators have become more active in developing Garden resources and creating new resources for LOtC (creating new teaching aids and expanding the Garden’s exhibitions). Many of the resources are being converted into electronic form to provide free access to them. (MSU, R2)

Student Learning Outcomes For students, interest and engagement with science in botanic gardens was increased using IBSE activities through the development of scientific process skills such as observation, critical thinking, asking questions, and developing hypotheses, and social abilities such as listening and debating. Students also showed increased understanding of issues of biodiversity and climate change. In terms of increasing student learning outcomes from IBSE activities in outdoor spaces, practitioners should realize that students require support with making connections and using terminology during IBSE activities. The level of evidence for student learning outcomes, or Guskey’s level 5 impacts, is indirect and not as strong as the previous levels, however instances of effect on affective as well as cognitive outcomes have been offered by the teachers’ and educators’ own reflective practice/ practitioner research on the implementation of IBSE with their class, that is, within their portfolios. I saw some normally passive students becoming actively involved in the research work in the garden. It was a complete surprise and I began to see them through different eyes. (Teacher from MSU, Deliverable 4.4 p. 10)

Botanic Gardens’ Ability to Support IBSE Outside the Classroom Knowledge and Skill Development Beliefs and Practices Through involvement in the INQUIRE project partners commented that they had developed their understanding and practice of the approach and

190

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

how to apply it to their own teaching. The result for most partners was the revision of previous lesson plans and activities and the trialling of resources developed by other partners in the project. For many partners, knowledge and experience of inquiry-based approaches was limited at the beginning of the project. Although all partners were engaged in running education programs through their gardens and museums, few had engaged in much IBSE within these offerings. Partners’ models of IBSE in practice were centered on collaborative learning and hypothesis-driven inquiry and illustrated a range of interpretations of IBSE. Through participation in the INQUIRE project however, the levels of understanding and practice of IBSE increased and partners produced a significant amount of high-quality IBSE activities for use in LOtC. Although not the original intention of INQUIRE, the project responded to an identified need for IBSE resources for use in outdoor contexts. As a result of the production, peer review, and testing of a range of new resources throughout the project lifecycle, the project developed and disseminated a new activities manual derived from partners’ work. Institutional Change The botanic gardens as organizations demonstrated changes in terms of staffing, provision for public engagement as well as educational programs and their whole educational offer. In terms of Guskey’s model of PD, this accounts for level 3 impact: that is, support was offered to participants. The result was organizational change in botanic gardens and changes in teaching practices for teachers in schools. It also demonstrates level 4 impacts because both teachers and educators implemented their new knowledge and skills in the classroom and garden contexts. It has changed a lot for our garden. We have employed two people first, [laughter], one of the things is we develop new workshops and things for schools, with this IBSE background. We’re not meaning that every activity has to be a pure IBSE activity in future, but whenever it is possible, trying to put these things in and think about it in that way and so from the institution, that’s changed a lot, yeah. (NBGB, R1)

Several partners have reported plans to continue the courses on a permanent basis, a lasting legacy of collaboration between botanic gardens/ natural history museums, universities, and schools. Partners also have extended their outreach programs such as Science Festivals and Open Days to incorporate inquiry-based offers and instigated change to the broader public engagement offerings with many partners expressing beliefs that providing educational programs for schools (pupils and teachers) should be

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

191

one of the botanic garden’s core activities. In terms of Guskey’s model of PD, this is indicative of level 3 impact. As the University is expanding its work with schools, it is interested in continuing the INQUIRE course on a permanent basis and in introducing innovative educational techniques. We are therefore currently working not only to certify the pilot course, but to offer a certified INQUIRE course on a permanent basis. We are delighted that BGCI has agreed to issue INQUIRE certificates to teachers who successfully complete the INQUIRE course, thereby raising the course’s status. (MSU, R2)

The partners’ ability to support IBSE in LOtC contexts is further supported by evidence from the Train the Trainers Manual (Kapelari et al., 2013). Through a series of tasks set to partners, a synthesis of advice for other LOtC providers was devised to disseminate their evidence-based recommendations. The evidence drawn upon derives from their experiences of running the pilot INQUIRE courses, underpinned by reflective practice and evaluation. All partners contributed to guidelines on Getting Started, Course Structure and Organisation, Partnerships with other organizations, Course Content, Teacher and Educator Recruitment, and Collaboration and Communication. This piece of evidence documents the partners’ experience and ability to design effective educational programs in botanic gardens and natural history museums see Table 6 for the complete checklist. This section clearly shows impacts at levels 3 and 4 (Guskey, 2000). Use of the Botanic Gardens The successful implementation of the courses has meant an increase in the status of education within individual gardens as well as teachers and schools now having broader views of the educational potential of botanic gardens as learning sites. The status and role of botanic gardens was broadened in the eyes of the teachers, viewed now as “privileged spaces for learning” as a result of the INQUIRE project. The significance of botanic gardens as learning spaces, centers of scientific excellence and teachertraining, locations for learning outside of the classroom and IBSE activities was recognised by the course participants. Enjoyment of the garden as a learning space was also noted, resulting in increased school bookings and visits to the gardens by teachers with their classes. In many cases this was generated from more positive attitudes and from the practical activities that developed the knowledge and skills required to conduct IBSE in botanic gardens. A successful strategy was the combination of theory and practical sessions. Similarly to the earlier sections, this is indicative of Guskey’s levels 1 and 2 impacts.

192

Table 6.

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

Checklist for Setting up and Managing an INQUIRE Training Course.

Activity Getting started Have you put together a team to set up and manage the INQUIRE course? Have you established or linked to an existing National Advisory Group (NAG)? Course structure and organization Have you developed the course program and lesson plans? Is the course content linked to the school curriculum? Do the dates for the INQUIRE course fit with the school calendar? Is the course accredited? Are health and safety processes in place and have you informed your course participants about them? Have you decided on the evaluation methods for the INQUIRE course? Partnerships with other organizations Have you established partnerships with: • Education authorities • LOtC networks • Schools Course Content Is your course content balanced between theoretical and practical sessions? Have you included talks in your course by: • biodiversity scientists • climate change scientists • IBSE educational researchers Have you included activities on developing IBSE lesson plans? Have you ensured that reflective practice is encouraged during the course? Have you included discussion time for teachers and educators to gain a common understanding of IBSE? Have you included discussion time on how open or structured an IBSE lesson can be? Have you set up assignments for participants to complete after each onsite training day? Teacher and educator recruitment Have you decided on the target audience for your course? Have you decided on the different strategies for recruiting teachers and educators? Collaboration and communication Have you encouraged teachers to form a community of practice? Have you set up an online communication channel for partners?

Yes/No

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

193

Being able to stand before the objects of study, the living beings themselves, their habitats and ecosystems, but also the botanic garden is a place where we can address concepts of various disciplines, including physics and chemistry, geology and soils, and other areas such as visual education, math, history and English, for example. (Educator from FCTUC, Deliverable 4.5)

Persistence of Barriers and Challenges Although the project can report very positively in terms of participant’s views and learning from the courses and student learning outcomes as a result, providing teacher-training courses in botanic gardens was not without its difficulties. Fostering IBSE teacher-training provision in botanic gardens involves overcoming many barriers and challenges including the recruitment of participants, engaging in online participation, local educational and political contexts and bureaucracy, the absence of relevant IBSE literature in some languages and the persistence, in European contexts, of known barriers to outdoor learning. I’m trying to provide this kind of information [in our language] to teachers and to explain (to) them the different information techniques (which are) good for them to use in practice. (UBG, R1) Last year, we had a teacher that could not implement her lesson plan at school because the school didn’t want her to. (UL, R2)

Assessing participants’ learning proved to be a challenging task despite partners’ showing increased use of assessment tools such as concept maps, concept cartoons, observations, posters, portfolios, and KWL worksheets. The following quotes show responses to the question “what did the participants learn as a result of the INQUIRE course?” Partners often described their views of participant learning in terms of their intended learning outcomes for the courses rather than what participants’ actually did learn. I think if they can learn that it’s all about putting questions when you see something, when you have observed something and that is a great way to make young people learn something. I hope that that will be the outcome, but I’m not able to measure it so much. (NBGB, R1) They have seen another way of teaching and they learned that it’s nice to get to create such a kind of lesson plan that is totally in another way that they usually use in their lessons. I think they’ve seen that their students are, they’re successful themselves, and to see that the students learnt a lot and have been more engaged than before. (BGRHB, R2)

194

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

CONCLUSION The INQUIRE project offers a significant contribution to education provision across Europe through the introduction and fostering of IBSE in both formal and informal settings on a large scale. Over 500 teachers and educators participated in the INQUIRE courses during the lifetime of the project, in 11 European countries countries, representing an impressive potential reach (see Table 3). This approach offered numerous opportunities for the successful cascading of IBSE practice and LOtC pedagogical approaches in both the courses that were offered and as a result of extensive networking and dissemination. The INQUIRE courses constituted significant front-line support to teachers and informal educators interested in engaging with IBSE in their practice. Consequently, a key network of educators, teachers, teacher trainers, researchers, and key educational and political stakeholders was established and considerable revival activity and discourse was achieved within each country. It has been argued that many traditionally employed forms of PD, such as one-shot in-service workshops, are “woefully inadequate” (Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012, p. 154) at meeting their aims of transforming practice (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Lumpe, 2007). INQUIRE courses were informed by what is known about effective PD (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Desimone, 2009). The findings show that the course was reviewed positively by the participants who learned both theoretical and practical aspects of implementing IBSE in LOtC contexts (see Bromley et al., 2013). A greater appreciation of botanic gardens as a learning resource was also noted. From a review of the evidence, there are strong indications of good quality course provision across the project, illustrated in the structure and nature of the design of the programs and in the outcomes from participants. As a result of participating in the INQUIRE project, significant PD resulted. The key factors for success of the INQUIRE project are: • The courses are designed using principles from research evidence for effective PD. • The courses build on established expertise of the botanic gardens and natural history museums. • The project is based on a sound, yet developing, understanding of the theoretical aspects of the underpinning pedagogy. • The partners extended the PD to their own informal science educators.

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

195

• The project benefits from evaluation and pedagogical support from academic partners and a management board structure. Although many barriers presented themselves with the project the overall result of this 3-year project is strong evidence for successful implementation of curriculum-based innovations, ultimately making a case for IBSE in LOtC settings. The project provides concrete examples of what IBSE looks like in practice in botanical and LOtC settings and provides an audible voice for the place of IBSE in botanic gardens.

NOTES 1. All partners are listed in Appendix A. 2. Partners are listed in Appendix A. 3. All project deliverables, including course and resource manuals, are available, free of charge, for download on the project website www.inquirebotany.org to increase dissemination and use by practitioners.

REFERENCES Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653 680. doi:10.1002/tea.20159 Alake-Tuenter, E., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Wals, A., Oosterheert, I., & Mulder, M. (2012). Inquiry-based science education competencies of primary school teachers: A literature study and critical review of the American National Science Education Standards. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2609–2640. Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2013). Measuring connection to nature in children aged 8–12: A robust methodology for the RSPB. Colchester: University of Essex. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3 15. doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003 Bromley, G., Regan, E., Kapelari, S., Dillon, J., Vergou, A., Willison, J., & Bonomi, C. (2013). The INQUIRE course manual. London: BGCI. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291 318. doi:10.1007/s10972012-9275-2 Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Kappan classic: Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597 604. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46 53.

196

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42 50. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181 199. Dillon, J. (2012). Panacea or passing fad How good is IBSE? Roots, 9(2), 5 9. European Commission. (2004). Europe needs more scientists report by the high level group on increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915 945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 Graham, E. A., Henderson, S., & Schloss, A. (2011). Using mobile phones to engage citizen scientists in research. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(38), 313 315. doi:10.1029/2011EO380002 Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kapelari, S., Bonomi, C., Dillon, J., Regan, E., Bromley, G., Vergou, A., & Willison, J. (2013). Train the trainer The INQUIRE course manual. London: BGCI. Kapelari, S., & Regan, E. (2013). Recommendations from the INQUIRE project consortium meetings. London: BGCI. Kapelari, S., Vergou, A., Willison, J., Regan, E., & Dillon, J. (2012). Strengthening networks for people, plants and botanic gardens. Paper presented at the Eurogard VI, European Botanic Gardens in a Changing World, Chios Island. Le´na, P. (2009). Europe rethinks education. Science, 326(5952), 501. doi:10.1126/science. 1175130 Le´na, P. (2011). International evidence shows teacher preparation is vital. Perspectives on education: Inquiry-based learning (pp. 8–11). London: The Welcome Trust. Levy, P., Lameras, P., McKinney, P., & Ford, N. (2011). The features of inquiry learning: Theory, research and practice. Pathway to Inquiry-Based Science Teaching (Deliverable 2.1). European Commission: CSA-SA Support Actions, Project Number 266624. Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on preservice teachers’ views of inquiry and nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 553 582. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9 Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Louv, R. (2006). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517 534. doi:10.1080/ 09500690121307 Lumpe, A. T. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 125 128. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9018-3

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

197

Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science: The relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 153 166. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.551222 Malone, K. (2008). Every Experience Matters: An evidence based research report on the role of learning outside the classroom for children’s whole development from birth to eighteen years. Report commissioned by Farming and Countryside Education for UK Department Children, School and Families. Wollongong, Australia. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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 National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2007). Research on learning in informal contexts: Advancing the field? International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1441 1445. doi:10.1080/ 09500690701491122 Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation. Phillips, M., Finkelstein, D., & Wever-Frerichs, S. (2007). School site to museum floor: How informal science institutions work with schools. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1489 1507. doi:10.1080/09500690701494084 Regan, E., & Dillon, J. (2013). Quality management report: INQUIRE Inquiry-based teacher training for a sustainable future. London: BGCI. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Preston Montford, Shropshire: Field Studies Council. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels. Report EU22-845. Sanders, D. L. (2007). Making public the private life of plants: The contribution of informal learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1209 1228. doi:10.1080/09500690600951549 Schulman, L., & Lehva¨virta, S. (2011). Botanic gardens in the age of climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(2), 217 220. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9979-6 Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143. Wyse Jackson, P. S. (1999). Experimentation on a large scale An analysis of the holdings and resources of botanic gardens. BGC News, 3(3).

198

ELAINE REGAN ET AL.

APPENDIX A List of Partners Management board 1. UNIVERSITAET INNSBRUCK (LFU) Austria 2. BOTANIC GARDENS CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (BGCI) United Kingdom 3. KING’S COLLEGE LONDON (KCL) United Kingdom 4. MUSEO DELLE SCIENZE MUSE) Italy 5. ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS KEW (KEW) United Kingdom Consortium partners 6. AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS (CSIC) Spain 7. UNIVERSITAET BREMEN (UniHB) Germany 8. SOFIISKI UNIVERSITET SVETI KLIMENT OHRIDSKI (UBG) Bulgaria 9. NATIONALE PLANTENTUIN VAN BELGIE (NBGB) Belgium 10. LANDESHAUPTSTADT HANNOVER (SBZH) Germany 11. VILLE DE BORDEAUX (BORDEAUX) France 12. FACULDADE CIENCIAS E TECNOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA (FCTUC) Portugal 13. M V LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY (MSU) Russian Federation 14. UNIVERSITETET I OSLO (NHM) Norway 15. BOTANIKA GMBH (BGRHB) Germany 16. UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA (UAH) Spain 17. UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA (UL) Portugal

Embedding Inquiry-Based Teaching And Learning In Botanic Gardens

199

APPENDIX B Inquiry Science Indicator Checklist An example: Feedback for Students For _______________________________________ (Name of the student)

This Student 1. Asks testable questions 2. Plans appropriate tests to answer questions 3. Defines a hypothesis 4. Gathers data in an organized and logical manner 5. Searches for additional information related to investigation 6. Exhibits an understanding of variables in an experiment 7. Exhibits understanding and use of a control 8. Translates observations into usable data 9. Discusses ongoing investigations with others 10. Compares data with others doing similar investigations 11. Asks new questions based on new data 12. Creates or modifies models 13. Engages in self-directed investigations 14. Makes entries in a journal/research book. 15. Makes connections between different investigations 16. Expresses interest in replicating the investigations of others

Often Some- Seldom Never times

REPRESENTATION CONSTRUCTION: A DIRECTED INQUIRY PEDAGOGY FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION Peter J. Hubber ABSTRACT This chapter describes a successful research-developed representation construction approach to teaching and learning that links student learning and engagement with the epistemic practices of science. This approach involves challenging students to generate and negotiate the representations (text, graphs, models, diagrams) that constitute the discursive practices of science, rather than focusing on the text-based, definitional versions of concepts. The representation construction approach is based on sequences of representational challenges that involve students constructing representations to actively explore and make claims about phenomena. The key principles of the representation construction approach, considered a form of directed inquiry, are outlined with illustrations from case studies of whole topics in forces and astronomy within several middle-years’ science classrooms. This chapter also outlines the manner in which the representation construction approach has been

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 201 221 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001011

201

202

PETER J. HUBBER

translated into wider scale implementation through a large-scale Professional Development (PD) workshop program. Issues associated with wider scale implementation of the approach are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Inquiry-based teaching and learning approaches have long been advocated as best practice in science classrooms (Anderson, 2002) but have yet been realized in terms of wide scale implementation (Marshall & Smart, 2013). A significant issue for teachers is a lack of clarity about the meaning of inquiry as it relates to pedagogy and assessment creating the perception that inquiry is difficult to implement in the classroom (Wee, Shepardson, Fast, & Harbor, 2007). According to Bybee (2000), most teachers think that inquiry is time consuming, costs too much, and is too advanced for their students. The research literature describes inquiry in different ways (Anderson, 2002) with most versions separating the experimental methods of science from the knowledge-producing processes. A common interpretation frames inquiry as consisting of both process skills and understandings about the nature of science (Breslyn & McGinnis, 2011). Windschitl (2008, p. 3) argues that “inquiry experiences should foster a deep and well-integrated understanding of important content, as well as the reasoning skills and practices of science the separation of ‘learning content’ and ‘doing inquiry’ is entirely unnecessary.” This broader perspective of inquiry that aligns content and process within the science classroom provides a better match to the discursive practices by which knowledge is built in science. Recent Australian Research Council (ARC) funded projects, Representations in Learning Science (RiLS 2007-10), and Creating Representations in Science Pedagogy (CRISP 2012-15), successfully developed and trialed a theoretically sophisticated but practical, inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning, called representation construction, that links student learning and engagement with the epistemic (knowledge production) practices of science (Tytler, Hubber, Prain, & Waldrip, 2013). Inquiry in the science classroom becomes inquiry into ideas and how they are represented, and the selective and partial nature of such representations. A representation is something that explains some aspect of nature. They can take many different forms or modes (e.g., text, graphs, models, diagrams) and are the means by which we understand and communicate

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

203

our science understandings. The representation construction approach involves challenging students to generate and negotiate the representations that constitute the discursive practices of science, rather than focusing on the text-based, definitional versions of concepts. It is based on sequences of representational challenges which involve students constructing representations to actively explore and make claims about phenomena. The approach was implemented in the RiLS and CRISP projects that have successfully demonstrated enhanced outcomes for students, in terms of sustained engagement with ideas, and quality learning, and for teachers’ enhanced pedagogical knowledge (Hubber, 2010, 2013; Hubber, Tytler, & Haslam, 2010). This chapter describes the principles that underpin the representation construction approach with illustrations from the RiLS and CRISP research and discusses the manner in which the approach has been translated into a major PD program, called Switched on Secondary Science Professional Learning (SOSSPL).

Background to RiLS, CRISP, and SOSSPL Projects The aims of the RiLS project (2007 2010) were to: a. develop a set of principles for an effective pedagogy, focusing on representational issues, to support the teaching and learning of science; b. develop practical examples that exemplify these principles; c. identify student learning gains associated with the approach; and d. investigate the challenges teachers face in implementing the approach. The research team worked collaboratively with six middle-years (5 8) teachers in the development of a 4 6-week sequence (8 12 lessons) on topics known to present learning difficulties in science. Over the duration of the research there were three topics (water, energy, and animals in the schoolyard) taught in the elementary school (years 5/6) and three topics (forces, astronomy and ideas about matter) taught in the secondary school level (years 7/8). Each class contained between 25 and 28 students. A case study methodology (Merriam, 1998) was adopted where, for each topic, the teachers’ practices, student teacher interactions, student activities and discussions were monitored using classroom video capture. All lessons were videotaped with two cameras; one camera was focused on the teacher and another camera focused on a group of students. The video data was initially coded using Studiocode software (http://www.studiocodegroup.com/)

204

PETER J. HUBBER

to identify “quality teaching and learning sequences.” These sequences were subjected to interpretive analysis to identify the teaching and learning principles underpinning them and for evidence in which representations supported reasoning and learning. The teachers were interviewed about their perceptions of the effectiveness of sequences and students were interviewed about their understandings of the relationships between representations and knowing. The students’ workbooks provided a continuous record of representational work. A series of workshops were held in which teachers and researchers reflected on and discussed their observations and experiences. Whilst broad perspectives of the principles were adopted in the early years of the project they were refined over time with considerations of the emerging data and the theoretical ideas. During the later stages of the project the teachers employed the refined perspectives of the principles in the development and delivery of the science topics. The RiLS project spawned the CRISP project that began in 2012 and will finish in 2015. It also spawned a Victorian Government Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) funded SOSSPL program which ran from 2011 to 2012. The overall objective of the CRISP project is to explore the nature and quality of student learning arising from the representation construction pedagogy by working with groups of teachers as co-researchers using a wider variety of contexts and topics. The aim is identifying key enablers to facilitate quality teacher learning and adaptation of the representation construction pedagogy. A key enabler is the PD given to the CRISP teachers who provide credible narratives generated from the classroom video data supported by the resources used by the RiLS teachers and more importantly, examples of student work. In addition, a workshop setting where the PD facilitator models the pedagogy provides compelling evidence of the efficacy of the application of the approach. Another key enabler is the conceptual focus taken to planning the science topics whereby teachers generate the key ideas and associated representational resources to support student learning of the ideas. The RiLS/CRISP teachers found this enabler a significant move away from their previous traditional textbook focus. A further enabler is the ongoing support generated by members of the school teaching team for each other. The RiLS/CRISP teachers found their discussions related more to reflecting on and enhancing their teaching practices than they had undertaken previously where collaboration consisted mainly of sharing curriculum resources. The SOSSPL program was in collaboration with the Victorian DEECD and involved over 300 secondary science teachers who participated in 3 days

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

205

of PD. Following 2 successive days of PD, where the representation construction approach was introduced to the teachers, there followed several weeks in which each teacher applied the approach on a small scale within their normal school practice. A third day of PD followed where the teachers shared their teaching experience in trialing the approach. Data collected in the evaluation of the SOSSPL program consisted of pre- and post-program surveys, focus group interviews, teacher presentations of their classroombased project and phone interviews of those teachers who agreed to an interview (approximately 10%) several weeks following the program.

PRINCIPLES OF A REPRESENTATION CONSTRUCTION PEDAGOGY The theoretical perspectives that underpin the representation construction pedagogy lie within a socio cultural framework where learning and knowing in the science classroom should be seen as a process of enculturation into the discursive practices of science (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Students need to understand why and how discipline-specific and generic literacies are used to construct and validate scientific knowledge (Moje, 2007). From this perspective understanding and practicing science involves students generating, coordinating and reasoning with multi-modal representations to develop explanations and solve problems (Cox, 1999; Ford & Forman, 2006). These representations include verbal and written language (including topic- and process-specific vocabulary), drawing, three dimensional modeling, mathematical (graphs, tables, equations), and gestural language. In learning these particular literacies of science, students are learning how to invest these representations with appropriate meaning as part of learning how to reason and communicate in this subject (Lemke, 2004). Explicit discussion of the function and form of representations is an important aspect of the teaching and learning that needs to take place in the classroom (Ainsworth, 2006, 2008). The development of students’ meta-representational competence (diSessa, 2004) is also important whereby they are able to interpret, construct, translate, and evaluate representations in a scientific manner (Kozma & Russell, 2005). The teacher’s task in scaffolding conceptual understanding thus becomes, importantly, about representational processes and products. While students have to learn how to interpret and critique authorized scientific representations, a focus on teacher-guided student construction and justification of their own representations can develop

206

PETER J. HUBBER

conceptual understanding and reasoning capacities in this subject, and enable students to participate in knowledge production methods aligned with scientific practice. From the theoretical perspectives described above and the teaching and learning practices that emerged from the analysis of the empirical data from the RiLS project, the following set of principles that underpin the representation construction approach to teaching and learning were developed: 1. Teaching sequences are based on sequences of representational challenges: Students construct representations to actively explore and make claims about phenomena. a. Clarifying the representational resources underpinning key concepts: Teachers need to clearly identify big ideas, key concepts and their representations, at the planning stage of a topic in order to guide refinement of representational work. b. Establishing a representational need: The sequence needs to involve explorations in which students identify the problematic nature of phenomena and the need for explanatory representation, before the introduction of the scientifically accepted forms. c. Coordinating aligning student-generated and canonical representations: There needs to be interplay between teacher-introduced and studentconstructed representations where students are challenged and supported to refine and extend and coordinate their understandings. 2. Representations are explicitly discussed: The teacher plays multiple roles, scaffolding the discussion to critique and support student representation construction in a shared classroom process. Students build their metarepresentational competency through these discussions. a. The selective purpose of any representation: Students need to understand that a number of representations are needed for working with multiple aspects of a concept. b. Group agreement on generative representations: There needs to be a guided process whereby students critique representations to aim at a resolution. c. Form and function: There needs to be an explicit focus on representational function and form, with timely clarification of parts and their purposes. d. The adequacy of representations: There needs to be ongoing assessment by the teacher and students of the student-constructed representations as well as those representations introduced by the teacher.

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

207

3. Meaningful learning: There needs to be provision for strong perceptual/ experiential contexts and attention to student engagement and interests through choice of task and encouragement of student agency. a. Perceptual context: Activity sequences need to have a strong perceptual context (i.e., hands on, experiential) and allow constant two-way mapping between objects and representations. b. Engagement and agency: Activity sequences need to focus on engaging students in learning that is personally meaningful and challenging, through affording agency and attending to students’ interests, values and aesthetic preferences, and personal histories. 4. Assessment through representations: Formative and summative assessment needs to allow opportunities for students to generate and interpret representations. Students and teachers are involved in a continuous, embedded process of assessing the adequacy of representations, and their coordination, in explanatory accounts. Illustrations of these principles, described in the sections below, are taken from lesson sequences in forces and astronomy taught in Year 7 and 8 classrooms. In these topics, as well as other topics taught in the RiLS and CRISP projects, importance is placed at the planning stage on the determination of the key concepts that underpin the topic [Principle 1a]. There is a conceptual focus on the design and delivery of the representation construction approach. Examples of key concepts generated for the topics are, “a force is a push or pull of one object (the doer) onto another object (the receiver)” (forces) and, “objects in space spin, or rotate on an axis, and orbit, or revolve around other objects” (astronomy). Such concepts guide the design of representational activities that include representations introduced by the teacher and representational challenges given to students.

Topic of Forces The introduction to the topic of forces focused initially on developing the key concept that force is an “action” word requiring an object called a doer, which applies a push or pull to another object called a receiver. This concept was viewed by the teacher as important for student understanding as it conflicts with the common alternative conception that force is a property of an object (McCloskey, 1983). The lesson began with a whole class brainstorm activity to generate a list of action words the students might use to manipulate a lump of plasticine. The teacher was explicit in repeating

208

PETER J. HUBBER

the words given by the students and showing by hand gesture their meaning. Very quickly the students were doing the same. Soon a list of action words was generated. From this list the teacher provided a representational challenge whereby the students were to determine if it was possible to sort the action words into the categories of ‘push’ and ‘pull’. Fig. 1 shows two student responses to the challenge, consisting of a tabulation and a Venn diagram. Apart from a class discussion of the similarities and differences in the student classifications of the action words attention was also given to the affordances of tables and Venn diagrams as suitable representational tools in completing the challenge [Principle 2c]. It was agreed by the whole class that Venn diagrams were useful in situations where objects might be classified into multiple categories; the representational need for the use of Venn diagrams was established [Principle 1b]. The teacher led the students to a class view, which they recorded in their journals (see Fig. 1), that “a force is a push or pull of one object (doer) onto another object (the receiver).” The students came to view that forces are actions of push or pull or any of several everyday words they expressed in the brainstorm activity [Principle 1c]. The teacher then gave the students a representational challenge whereby they were to change the shape of a lump of plasticine and then record in their journals the actions that were taken. Students were paired up, one partner took the role of shape maker and the other partner the role of shape copier. The shape copier was given the shape maker’s recording of actions to produce the shape. Both the shape maker and copier then came together to compare and discuss the physical shapes made. Each partner was expected to write a comment in the journal. Fig. 2 shows one student’s journal entry. The shape copier gave a score of 5/5 with the comment “instructions very clear making it easy to make the shape.” The shape maker commented on the shape made by the copier, giving a score of 5/5 with a comment, “Shape was exactly the same. No need to change anything” [Principle 2d, 4]. The critique of student-generated representations was done at the dyad level as well as whole class level in discussions guided by the teacher [Principle 2b]. These discussions led to an exploration of the affordances of the use of diagrams and arrows to show the actions of forces. In this activity and subsequent activities the teacher was coordinating and aligning student-generated representations to the canonical representation of a force, or free-body, diagram [Principle 1c]. In later lessons students were expected to explain everyday actions via a force diagram. One challenge given to the students was to represent the forces involved in opening a screw-top container. They were each given a

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

Fig. 1.

209

Venn Diagram and Tabulation of Action Words to Manipulate a Lump of Plasticine (Year 7).

container and the video-record indicated students moving often between constructing their representation and physically manipulating the container (see Fig. 3 for two examples) [Principles 3a,b].

Topic of Astronomy In the planning stage of the topic there was a recognition that the development of explanations of astronomical behavior such as day/night cycle, seasons and phases of the moon required an initial understanding of the key

210

Fig. 2.

PETER J. HUBBER

Year 7 Student’s Journal Entries as Part of a Plasticine Shaping Challenge.

Fig. 3.

Two Year 7 Student Responses to a Challenge to Represent the Forces Involved in Opening a Screw-Top Container.

movements of celestial objects given as rotation and revolution. It was also important for students to develop the skill to be able to move easily between the geocentric representations of astronomical phenomena and the space representations in creating explanations of the phenomena [Principle 1a].

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

211

In the first lesson the teacher challenged the students to represent their understanding of rotation and revolution through the physical action of their bodies. After demonstrating their understanding through role play the students were to form pairs and given the following representational challenges: 1. The moon always has one side facing the Earth and over the period of a month it undertakes one complete revolution. During this time does it also rotate and, if so, how many times? 2. Is it possible for two celestial objects to revolve about each other? After several minutes several student pairs came to a solution for one or the other of the challenges through role play. They were using the representational form of a role play as a reasoning tool. The class assessed the representational constructions of student pairs and, through class discussion, came to a view that for challenge 1 the moon undertakes one full rotation each lunar month and, for challenge 2, it was possible for two celestial objects to mutually revolve about each other [Principles 2b, d & 4]. An astronomical application of challenge 2 in terms of the motion of binary star systems was provided by the teacher. Towards the end of most lessons the students were to construct a representation that reflected their learning. Fig. 4 shows what two students constructed at the end of the lesson that involved the role play challenges.

Fig. 4. Two Year 8 Students’ Representational Reflections of the Lesson Which Involved the Representational Challenges Related to Rotation and Revolution.

212

PETER J. HUBBER

To scaffold the students in moving from a geocentric view of astronomical phenomena to a space view they were given, per pair of students, a small Light Emitting Diode (LED) torch and a mini-globe [Principle 3a]. The teachers reported in interview that the students were often seen manipulating their torches and globes when discussions centered on explanations of phenomena such as day/night cycle, seasons, eclipses and phases of the moon. Such devices provided a physical model accessible to the students in constructing scientific explanations of the astronomical phenomena. In relation to student learning, comparisons on pre- and post-tests were undertaken between two Year 8 classes and the Kalkan and Kiroglu (2007) study which involved 100 pre-service primary and secondary education teachers who participated in a semester-length course. Students in each study undertook the same set of multiple choice questions. A measure of comparison of pre- and post-test results is the normalized gain index, , the ratio of the actual average student gain to the maximum possible average gain: = (post% pre%)/(100 pre%) (Zeilik, Schau, & Mattern, 1998). Gain index values can range from 0 (no gain achieved) to 1 (all possible gain achieved). The mean gain reported by Kalkan and Kiroglu (2007, p. 17) was described as a “respectable 0.3.” In contrast the mean gain for the two Year 8 classes in the RiLS research was significantly higher at 0.63 (Hubber, 2010). Apart from multiple choice questions the tests included items requiring students to provide an explanation [Principle 4]. Such items provided a substantial space, without lines, for students to respond. Fig. 5 shows several students’ scientifically correct responses to the question, “An astronomer investigating the motion of Europa, which is a moon, or natural satellite, of the planet Jupiter, found that it revolved as well as rotated. Use the space below to clearly explain what each of these motions mean.” The absence of lines for students to provide a response gave the students the opportunity to apply a representational form of their choosing that might be something other than text. The representational challenges, that are central to the representation construction pedagogy, require students to apply higher order thinking processes than recall of the textbook representational forms. Using the language of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) the tasks might ask the students to “evaluate” other students’ constructed representations or to ‘create’, from the students’ perspective, new representational forms to solve problems and support claims in explaining scientific phenomena.

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

Fig. 5.

213

Four Students’ Responses to a Post-Test Question about Rotation and Revolution.

TRANSLATION INTO WIDER SCALE IMPLEMENTATION The successful research-developed representation construction approach has been translated into wider scale implementation through a state-wide

214

PETER J. HUBBER

SOSSPL program. Crawford (2007) suggests that inquiry-based teaching is complex and sophisticated and so requires significant PD. Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, and Hewson (2010) assert that there is widespread consensus that effective PD needs to have student learning at its core and has the following elements: • • • • •

It is directly aligned with student learning needs; It is intensive, ongoing and connected to practice; It focuses on the teaching and learning of specific academic content; It is connected to other school initiatives; It provides time and opportunities for teachers to collaborate and build strong working relationships and • It is continuously monitored and evaluated (p. 5). Voogt et al. (2011, p. 1235) add that PD also needs to “provide examples of concrete classroom applications of the general ideas underlying the change, expose teachers to actual practice rather than providing them with descriptions of practice, and be coherent with teachers’ own professional development (PD) goals and the goals for their student learning.” Such views about effective PD are supported by Capps, Crawford, and Constas (2012) in relation to inquiry-based teaching PD who also argue the importance of improving teachers’ knowledge about inquiry and inquiry-based applications in the classroom. Many of the elements of effective PD described above were incorporated into the SOSSPL program.

SOSSPL program The purpose of the SOSSPL program was to build teacher capacity to improve student learning outcomes in secondary science with an overarching pedagogy of representation construction. Resources for the PD came from cases studies from several of the RiLS project topics that included accounts of the activities that illustrated each of the pedagogical principles supported by examples of students’ constructed representations. Many of the workshop activities placed the teacher participants in the role of the learner and the teaching approach enacted by the facilitator was the representation construction approach. Examples of activities included those presented in this chapter as illustrations of the principles of the representation construction approach. Another example is shown in Fig. 6 which shows a group response to a representational challenge to represent on a small whiteboard the group’s understanding of the concept of temperature. The

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

Fig. 6.

215

A Group of Teachers’ Representation of the Concept of Temperature.

aim of this challenge was to illustrate to the teachers that a scientific concept consists of a set of interlinked representations and practices. The activities undertaken by the teachers often led to discussions as to the efficacy of adopting such activities in the teachers’ own classrooms. Emphasis was placed on group discussions on the main themes arising from the activities and teachers sharing their practice. They worked together in planning a classroom-based project related to the representation construction approach, which they enacted in the period between the second and third day of the SOSSPL program. On the third day of the program, several weeks later, the teachers shared their experiences in enacting their classroom-based projects. The teachers saw great benefit in collaborating with other teachers in participating in the activities, discussing the main themes that arose from the activities and sharing ideas and resources. They valued participating in the activities which gave them insights into how they might enact such activities in their own classrooms. Some indicative teacher comments in relation to their perceived benefits in participating in the PD were: We have lots of ideas and resources in the workshops that we can apply at school … there’s actual units of work that you can take and follow. It’s wonderful to be introduced to new techniques but this has been documented and you can walk through it if you are not certain. (Focus Group) Hands on equipment & follow up because [you] can see from a student’s perspective and actually reflection on one’s own practices. (Survey)

216

PETER J. HUBBER

I really enjoyed collaborating with other teachers & facilitators overall! Sharing ideas and resources during discussion. (Survey)

The participating teachers took ideas from the SOSSPL experience to construct and implement a small classroom-based project between Day 2 and 3 of the overall program. More than 90% of the projects represented innovation from the perspective of the teachers and were based on extension of the ideas focused on in the PD. Comments from the teachers included references to significant reflection based on their own practice using these new ideas: Well, I found value in representations as a novel concept of a way of delivering content to students without being a teacher-centre zone. I thought it was a genuine new approach that has a lot of potential. (Focus Group) But I think for us, it’s reminded us that we shouldn’t be creating them [representations] all the time, that the students need to create them. (Focus Group) … it does focus attention on students actually puzzling out their own response to key issues that you want to put before them, and it also creates then the conversation that allows you to interact with a student … the engagement is more authentic. (Focus Group)

Change in teacher beliefs and attitudes were evident in the increasing value that the teachers attached to the representation construction approach that represented for them, new pedagogical knowledge. Indicative comments included: I now see better the link between concept development and asking students to represent their ideas. (Focus Group) I try to be more lateral in my thinking in regards to what we can present to the students and not be textbook-based all the time and present them with tasks that they find stimulating and engaging which are not necessarily straight out of the front of the book. (Focus Group) My normal practice always incorporated discovery, however I am now more aware of how student forming ideas is more meaningful to them, so I am trying to do this more and more. (Interview) When I’m setting tests … I’m giving them a lot more chance to show me what they have learnt in their own way and I’m getting a lot more information too about what their conceptions are. (Interview)

In adopting innovative practices associated with a representation construction approach in their classroom projects the teachers reported: • the need for flexibility in lesson direction where the students took the lesson in unknown and unexpected directions;

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

217

• the approach was catering for a diversity of students; • a recognized shift in their role when using a representational approach to one of scaffolding learning and not telling them the information; • a greater insight into the role played by representations in teaching and learning and; • deeper levels of student learning and greater engagement in science. Within the project presentations there were many references, some described above, to deeper levels of student learning and greater engagement of students in science through a representation construction approach. This was also evident in interviews. As one might expect, these outcomes for students were compelling for teachers in convincing them of the value of the representation construction approach. Some teacher comments included: … it gets (students) understanding the key concepts in a really engaging manner in a way I have not seen possible before. (Focus Group) So yes it is taking us longer [teaching the content] but those key concepts that we are teaching are embedded I believe … we don’t think it wasn’t happening before it wasn’t happening before ….We are getting depths of learning. (Focus Group) For me it’s shown me that I have to hone in on what specifically we need them to learn because we are going for that depth of knowledge now rather than the breadth, so when we plan we may need to cut the curriculum a bit but to get that depth of knowledge I think it’s worth it. (Focus Group)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The representation construction approach requires students to interpret and construct representations of scientific concepts, claims and processes. By representing some aspect of the world about them, students engage in the processes of knowledge construction of science as well as gaining scientific knowledge. The approach maps well with the creative processes in which scientists explore nature and construct new knowledge. A key implication from a pedagogical perspective is the need to shift practice in teaching science from its traditional focus on the delivery of content that is conceived of as resolved knowledge structures, to the pedagogical practices of a representation approach based on a discursive, more active view of knowledge and learning. The representation construction approach places demands on the pedagogical skills of the teacher beyond those needed for transmissive

218

PETER J. HUBBER

approaches. For example, the skills to provide a representation rich environment and opportunities for students to negotiate, integrate, refine and translate across representations. Teachers require good subject content knowledge that entails an understanding of the key representational resources underpinning science topics and an understanding of the role of representation in teaching and learning science. The approach requires of teachers a capability to run open discussions and develop the insights needed to guide the classroom tasks and conceptual negotiation. The wider scale implementation of the representation construction approach with the 3-day SOSSPL PD was successful, albeit at a superficial level, where the participating teachers found the approach a fruitful and engaging classroom activity. The teachers reported change in their current practices in implementing the representation construction approach. However, the trialing of the approach occurred in a short period of time, ranging from single lessons to multiple lesson sequences. The teachers modified the topic they were teaching at the time and there was no evidence of trialing the approach for a whole topic. In contrast, the teachers in the RiLS and CRISP projects planned and adopted the approach for whole topics sequences. There was a representational focus for whole topic sequences from the planning stage to its delivery in the classroom. This was seen as a key enabler to facilitate teacher’s adaptation of the approach found in the CRISP project. Within the SOSSPL PD the teachers saw great benefit in collaborating with other teachers in sharing ideas and resources and, in particular, sharing their experiences in implementing the representation construction approach in their classrooms. In comparison, collaboration among the teachers was at a more sustained level among the RiLS and CRISP teachers. These teachers formed teams in teaching the same topic. They regularly met within their school setting to plan and share their teaching experiences during the teaching of the topic. Discussions held during the teaching sequences allowed the teachers to modify and refine their teaching approach with the teaching period of the topic. It was through this process that the RiLS teachers became increasingly more confident in incorporating the representation construction approach into their practice (Hubber, 2013). Collaboration among the teachers enacting the representational construction approach was found to be another key enabler to facilitate teachers’ adaptation of the approach in the CRISP project. A further key enabler to facilitate teachers’ adaptation of the representation teaching approach was seen by the CRISP teachers as the curriculum resources developed from the RiLS project that illustrated the approach.

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

219

The production of web-based PD resources might be a way to introduce new teachers to the approach and to act as a repository to share ideas and resources for practitioners of the approach. The current CRISP project is in the process of developing such a web-based resource (see http://blogs. deakin.edu.au/crisp). This resource may include a classroom video of teachers enacting the representation construction approach. The current CRISP project has gained ethics permissions from teachers and students in the research schools to allow the classroom video-record and student work to be used for teaching purposes in pre- and in-service teaching programs. There are multiple benefits in using video cases in pre-service teacher training and in-service teacher PD in terms of the ability to interrogate and critique the classroom from multiple perspectives (Wang & Hartley, 2003). The composition of the website and the manner in which it can support a collaborative PD environment represents a useful direction for further research. In relation to the literature on effective PD (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010) the SOSSPL program directly aligned with student learning needs; was connected to practice; focused on the teaching and learning of specific academic content and provided time and opportunities to collaborate. However, PD in relation to implementing an inquiry-based teaching approach such as representation construction not only needs to provide resources that illustrate the approach it also needs to emphasize a teambased focus for teachers at the school level in planning and teaching whole topics sequences.

REFERENCES Ainsworth, S. (2006). DEFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183 198. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in science education (pp. 191 208). New York, NY: Springer. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1 12. Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. (2011). A comparison of exemplary biology chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48 77. doi:10.1002/sce.20469

220

PETER J. HUBBER

Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20 46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291 318. doi:10.1007/s10972012-9275-2 Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343 363. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613 642. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293 331. Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Refining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1 33. Hubber, P. (2010). Year 8 students’ understanding of astronomy as a representational issue: Insights from a classroom video study. In D. Raine, L. Rogers, & C. Hurkett (Eds.), Physics community and cooperation: Selected contributions from the GIREP-EPEC & PHEC 2009 international conference (pp. 45 64). Leicester: Lulu, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science, University of Leicester. Hubber, P. (2013). Teacher perspectives of a representation construction approach to teaching science. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 135 149). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5 28. Kalkan, H., & Kiroglu, K. (2007). Science and nonscience students’ ideas about basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for elementary school teachers. The Astronomy Education Review, 1(6), 15 24. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121 146). London: Kluwer. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marshall, J. C., & Smart, J. B. (2013). Teachers’ transformation to inquiry-based instructional practice. Creative Education, 4(2), 132 142. doi:org/10.4236/ce.2013.42019 McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114 122. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy learning. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1 44.

Representation Construction: A Directed Inquiry Pedagogy

221

Tytler, R., Hubber, P., Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2013). A representation construction approach. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 31 45). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & de Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(8), 1235 1244. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003 Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105 138. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63 89. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9031-6 Windschitl, M. (2008). What is inquiry? A framework for thinking about authentic scientific practice in the classroom. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 1 20). Arlington, VA: NSTA press. Zeilik, M., Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1998). Misconceptions and their change in universitylevel astronomy courses. The Physics Teacher, 36(1), 104 107.

THE GRADUATING PROJECT: A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INQUIRYBASED CAPSTONE IN ARTS Andrew Funston and Nicolette Lee ABSTRACT Australian academics and students are discovering the value of final-year capstone units. Often designed as inquiry-based projects, capstones can engage students in authentic work that interests them personally, while building on their disciplinary knowledge and graduate capabilities. However, for some academics dealing with less academically accomplished students, the focus on student-directed activity that is inherent in inquiry-based learning can be a cause of concern. The cross-disciplinary inquiry-based capstone in Arts at an Australian university discussed in this chapter should allay some of those concerns. The cohort at this university includes a high proportion of non-traditional and first in the family students, many from non-English speaking backgrounds. The success of this capstone stems from student teams selecting and designing their own projects, often drawing on knowledge(s) and concerns relevant to their own diverse communities. The flexible framework and guided inquiry approach sees tutors step back becoming facilitators rather than experts and this in turn builds students’ confidence in their

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 223 241 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001012

223

224

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

capacity to plan and execute their projects. The range and quality of student projects carried out in this capstone (many of which involve close links with local communities and advocacy organisations) attest to the value of cross-disciplinary, inquiry-based and student-managed capstone units.

In the Australian higher education context, universities are increasingly conscious of the need to provide students with authentic transitional experiences linking undergraduate study to subsequent life stages, including employment. There is also increasing awareness of the limitations of knowledge alone in the context of the complex world in which our graduates will operate. This generation of graduates will find themselves in a career and personal environment that is increasingly interconnected and influenced by external factors, and can be experienced as chaotic, provisional and complex (Barnett, 2000). They are likely to have less linear life-paths than previous generations, characterised by multiple careers, periods of unemployment and rapid changes in skill and knowledge requirements (Monteiro & Sharma, 2010; Sardeshmukh & Smith-Nelson, 2011). Arguably, therefore, greater importance hinges on our capacity to provide students with transitional experiences and support the development of graduate attributes in their final year of study than in previous generations. Over recent years, there have been a large number of government-funded and institutional curriculum-renewal projects in Australia seeking to develop frameworks and approaches that support development of graduate attributes and the transition from student to professional identities. Capstones, as culminating experiences in a qualification, have become the focus of some of this work (e.g. Kift et al., 2013; van Acker, Bailey, Wilson, & French, 2014). In particular, there has been interest in the role of capstones in both integrating prior learning and supporting students to develop a mature personal and professional identity, as well as their capacity to provide a transitional experience for students as they move toward the next stage in their careers in industry or post-graduate study (Lee, 2014; McNamara et al., 2011). Capstones are also widely described as engaging students in the development of graduate attributes such as self-direction and capacity to work with others, communication and complex problemsolving skills, responsible and ethical behaviour, flexibility and creativity. In achieving these goals, capstone curricula are often designed with an inquiry, project or problem-based focus (e.g. Healey, 2005). However, some confusion arises from the interchangeable use of these terms, and

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

225

Levy and Petrulis (2012) note that the terms are often used synonymously. Spronken-Smith, Walker, Batchelor, O’Steen, and Angelo (2011) describe inquiry-based learning as: a range of teaching approaches in which learning is stimulated by a question or issue, learning is based on constructing new knowledge and understanding, the teacher’s role is one of a facilitator, and there is a move towards self directed learning. (p. 15)

This definition is identical to that found in the literature on project-based learning (e.g. Adderley et al., 1975; Lee, 2009). For the purposes of this discussion, we describe the activities undertaken by students in the capstone subject as being project-based and these projects being underpinned by a process of inquiry. As noted by Kilpatrick (1918) and others, inquiry-based learning engages students in work of personal interest and authenticity. That is, the learner is made central to the process of learning and is able to draw on his or her experiences, interests and abilities to define the shape of the work (Gulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006). Baxter Magolda (2009) and Healey, Lannin, Stibbe, and Derounian (2013) further emphasise the necessity of engaging students as producers and self-authors, resulting in (among other things) sophisticated epistemological development, integrated identity and cognitive maturity. Baxter Magolda (2004), in particular, argues the importance of ‘validating learners’ capacity to know’ (p. xxi), ‘situating learning in learners’ experience’ (p. 191), and mutually constructed meaning in supporting students to move from ‘external to internal self-definition’ (p. 10). These points resonate with the literature on the engagement of non-traditional students in higher education; in particular, recent work in transition pedagogies and inclusive curricula emphasises the importance of learning activities that connect with students’ own backgrounds, knowledge and interests (Kift, Nelson, & Clarke, 2010). We take the view that, regardless of context or curricular nomenclature, the use of inquiry-based learning principles signals a pedagogical focus involving engagement in authentic, experiential learning activities that empower students to investigate and ask questions, to define their own paths, to make decisions and deal with challenges as a formative learning process. The benefits of engaging students in inquiry-based curricula have been widely supported in the literature. These range from enhanced acquisition and retention of disciplinary knowledge, improved metacognitive and critical capacity, to significant enhancement of self-regulation and judgment (Baxter Magolda, 2004, 2009; Gulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006; Healey et al., 2013; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007).

226

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

Nonetheless, our experience has been that the level of independence and lack of teacher-directed activity inherent in inquiry-based learning can be a cause of concern for some academics, particularly where student entry points and backgrounds are diverse. Anecdotally, these concerns relate to individual academic’s beliefs about student maturity or capability, a preference for ‘filling’ the curriculum with disciplinary content and direct instruction, or in the context of the capstone experience, a perceived need for remedial content delivery in the final year. These concerns are supported by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), for example, who argue that inquirybased learning, as ‘minimally-guided’ learning, is ineffective, although they concede, ‘the advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal guidance”’ (p. 75). Their argument, however, appears to be partly based on the assumption that inquiry-based learning does not involve guidance of any kind. The premise of the capstone course described in the subsequent sections of this chapter is to the contrary: that all students are able to engage effectively in independent inquiry when learning is linked to personally resonant topics and thus authentic to the students’ interests. As such, the curriculum described in this chapter is aligned with the work of Baxter Magolda and others who advocate the importance of holistic and authentic learning that draws on and validates the capacity of students to participate in the mutual construction of knowledge and meaning. In this case, scaffolding for project processes is provided in order to support inquiry, but does not overwhelm the fundamental authenticity of student inquiry experiences. The result, for us, has been outstanding learning outcomes and products and an exciting experience for staff and students. In the following sections of this chapter, we discuss the capstone curriculum in detail. We commence this description with an overview of the institution and program context in which it sits.

THE BACHELOR OF ARTS AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY Victoria University (VU), in metropolitan Australia, is a medium-sized institution of some 25,000 students, and is strategically positioned as ‘The University of Opportunity’ (Victoria University, 2014). The institution attracts a high proportion of traditionally under-represented and first in family1 students, with many coming from non-English speaking and low

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

227

socio-economic status backgrounds. Collectively, non-traditional students form approximately 40% of the undergraduate cohort. The College of Arts offers 16 undergraduate (three-year) degree programs and 12 pre-degree certificate and diploma programs, many of the latter with designated pathways into undergraduate degrees. These academic programs aim to ‘develop creative expression, knowledge about people, society and culture and connection with local and global communities’ (Victoria University, n.d., ‘About us: Arts’, para. 1). The Bachelor of Arts (BA) is a three-year (for full-time students) modular program comprising 24 subjects. Students are required to pursue two specialisations from a diverse set of disciplinary offerings.2 In addition, students may choose from a range of ‘electives’ from across the university, and may opt to take a semester (usually in the second year) at a university outside of Australia. In the final year of their program, all undergraduate students are required to undertake a capstone subject comprising a significant independent project. The BA program-level learning outcomes which align well with the more specific outcomes of the final-year capstone expect that graduates of the program will be able to: • Demonstrate critical awareness and understanding of theory and research in chosen areas of study. • Gain insights into their own lives and the patterns of social, cultural and political experience of society in general. • Generate, organise and undertake research into the life of their community. • Apply academic skills in reading, note-taking and collection and organisation of resource materials including the presentation of oral and written material. • Employ skill and confidence in group discussion and activity. • Apply interpersonal skills consistent with professional practice. The BA is the most popular and accessible of the degree programs offered by the College of Arts, with 200 300 students enrolled in 2014. Generally, applications for first-year entry to degree-level programs in the State of Victoria (Australia) are handled through a central agency, the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre. Most applicants will have successfully completed the high school exit qualification the Victorian Certificate of Education or similar. These results are translated into an Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) score. The ATAR score for the VU BA is lower than for the other degree programs offered by the

228

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

College of Arts, and is amongst the lowest ATARs of any Bachelor of Arts Degrees in Australia. Mature students enter through alternative routes and are usually granted admission on the basis of prior experience, whether that be life or work-based. Students can also enter the BA at any level from first through third year as a result of pathways from diploma programs outside of the higher education system. There is ongoing debate in the Australian higher education sector regarding the likelihood of academic and employment success for many of these students based on their socio-economic backgrounds and a perceived lack of preparation for higher education. Combined with the diversity of program experiences within the BA, there is certainly some complexity in designing curricula that meet the needs of all students. However, we believe that this variation in the personal and inter-disciplinary backgrounds of the cohort affords a rich set of learning experience and outcomes, as we later discuss.

THE GRADUATING PROJECT The Graduating Project is a compulsory two-semester capstone in the final year of the BA. This capstone was developed in 2011 and has undergone continuous improvements since that time in response to extensive student feedback and collegial peer review. The capstone is designed for students to address a problematic situation or issue through an inquiry/project-based curriculum. We also aim to ensure that the capstone experience is culturally inclusive and meets students at their (variable) levels as well as engaging their deeply held interests. The key aims of the Graduating Project are articulated as being to: • Enhance students’ capacity to work collaboratively in small teams and, where appropriate, in partnership with community organisations and businesses. • Build on the disciplinary knowledge and skills they have acquired throughout their degree-level program (or through their working-life and other relevant experiences). • Encourage and support students’ growing independence and confidence as learners capable of addressing complex social issues. • Empower students to produce tangible and high-quality outcomes (including reports, presentations, kits, posters and so forth).

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

229

Students carry out an independent project in small groups or occasionally as individuals. They often work with schools, non-profit organisations and other community groups. Teams are self-selecting, although selection based on diverse disciplinary and personal knowledge, skills and perspectives is encouraged. The curriculum is deliberately scaffolded to support the project processes. Students first identify an issue they wish to address and its component parts, then formulate a proposal for a project concept and outcomes, carry out planning and then deliver an interim report on their progress in the first semester. The second semester is dedicated to project development and has a much more flexible schedule. The capstone is supported by an online resource and a book of readings, although students are also required to carry out independent research for their individual essays, and teams are expected to do extensive research related to their projects.

Delivery Students take part in this capstone from across multiple campuses and programs, necessitating negotiation of timetables and multiple seminar deliveries. The first semester entails a weekly seminar and is focused on a guided inquiry process. This process is intended to support students’ acclimatisation to inter-disciplinary and team-based inquiry and to meet their needs at each point in the project experience. The seminars involve a mixture of lecture-style delivery and group discussions related to group management and project topics (weeks 1 5). In the first two weeks, students spend time developing a sense of their preferred team capabilities and brainstorming possible project areas and topics, then confirming their team membership and topic. At week five, they submit an individual essay reflecting on the potential for issues with group dynamics and communications, such as inclusive and inter-cultural communication, problems of social loafing, conflict resolution and so forth. As the semester unfolds the classes become less formal and students are expected to self-manage as their decisionmaking confidence and team management capability increases. In this latter part of the semester, student teams schedule meetings with the coordinator or tutor to discuss planning, resourcing and research issues (weeks 6 10). The first semester concludes with submission of reports and the formal presentations (weeks 11 and 12). The second semester also entails a weekly two-hour seminar and is similarly guided, although at this point there is a distinct shift towards in-depth topics related to ethical, legal and methodological issues, along with

230

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

procedural and benchmarking guidelines. For example, teachers and students work through requirements for research ethics (for projects involving interviewing or working with at-risk community groups and people under 18 years of age), survey design (for students using quantitative or mixedmethods approaches) and other nuts and bolts issues around report writing and presentation. By this point, project progress review largely occurs in team and tutor meetings. The approach taken to assessment reflects a concern with authenticity and alignment (Adderley et al., 1975; Biggs, 1999; Healey et al., 2012; Lee, 2006), in that what is assessed is the work undertaken by students for their projects (rather than abstracted or secondary evidence), and criteria focuses as much on processes and thinking capabilities as it does products. By the end of the capstone, students have produced essays that articulate the challenges they anticipate and experience as well as detailed reports documenting and justifying their decision-making and project outcomes. Students often develop additional products in their projects. Most commonly these take the form of multi-media kits, short videos, blogs and teaching resources.

Authentic Inquiry Having opportunities to enhance critical and decision-making skills, to take responsibility for learning, as well as developing a sense of personal and professional identity are cornerstones of capstone curricula. These capacities are developed through authentic learning experiences (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007). Authenticity can be considered as engagement with ‘real world’ issues and processes, and as activities that engage students through personal resonance. In our capstone, students select inquiry topics based on their personal interests and draw on their own personal and professional experiences to inform the inquiry process and engage ‘in the messiness of working through knowledge claims’ (Baxter Magolda, 2004, p. 215). In this respect, we see the cultural diversity of our student cohort as a considerable benefit to the learning experience. As noted earlier, our cohort includes many first in family students from low socio-economic status groups as well as those from non-English speaking and immigrant backgrounds and some Indigenous students. This diversity gives our classroom a great variety of value-positions, community-anchored knowledge(s) and life experiences.

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

231

The capstone experience is designed as a flexible framework in which students can identify, explore and develop critical insights on an issue. Students actively work as knowledge producers by utilising their own frame of reference, and that of others, to develop a coherent understanding of an issue, as well as to explore disciplinary boundaries. Thus, we aim to leverage these life experiences and value propositions as the core focus of project selection. Reflecting the diverse student cohort, the issues students choose to explore vary enormously. For example, in 2013 topics included: the status of asylum seekers in a contemporary Australian context; barriers to employment encountered by South Sudanese immigrants to Melbourne; shifting patterns of young people’s transitions and participation in the casual labour market; and peer pressure as a component of alcohol consumption. In past years, students have dealt with issues as diverse as local and national animal welfare strategies and developing student-run literary magazines. The approaches taken in these projects also vary considerably from team to team: they may be formulated as empirical research or heuristics, and product foci span academic and industry publications, marketing strategies, community support and activism. One group of students undertook pre-volunteer training with a charitable organisation to inform their project process while others have worked with schools to develop teaching resources or have partnered with local community groups to understand and disseminate local cultural and social issues.

The Teachers’ Stance Helle, Tynjala, and Olkinuora (2006) describe the role of the teacher in projects as that of ‘an expert practitioner, a model and a coach’ (p. 293). Similarly, Adderley et al. (1975) describe the role as one of supervisor, concerned with providing guidance rather than direction, and Baxter Magolda (2004) an approach that is about ‘sharing authority and mutual engagement in thinking and learning’ (p. 215). Our stance has been aligned with these positions: that there is a need to step back from the role of the expert and to act as facilitators and mentors but increasingly as fellow travellers, to allow students to become the decision-makers, taking charge of the topics, processes and outcomes of their activities. Certainly, we believe that it is imperative that tutors trust that third-year student groups are capable of complex and rigorous self-managed learning through collaborative work. It is equally important that this belief extends to the capacity of students to produce high-quality, innovative and

232

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

resourceful outcomes. In the context of student cohorts who may have experienced poor success rates in prior formal studies, this is a crucial message to students. If we share with them our confidence in their capabilities, they are more likely to remain positively engaged, resilient in the face of challenges and to extend themselves to achieve exceptional project outcomes. Beyond the initial message to students, this means that, as tutors, we also need to step back from the role of topic expert in order to empower students to find their own answers. The regular contact between tutors and their groups is seen, foremost, as an opportunity for groups to try out ideas and approaches, rather than as an opportunity for direction and topic or content delivery. This is both a pedagogic and pragmatic stance. Students undertaking the capstone draw on their disciplinary knowledge and skills. Most groups will include people with a wide range of cultural backgrounds and life experiences, as well as vastly differing knowledge and skill sets. It is not conceivable for the tutor to hold the detailed knowledge or methods relevant to the range of group projects chosen by such diverse cohorts. For example, in 2014 one group chose to investigate prevailing misconceptions in Australia about Indonesian culture and politics in this post-reformasi period. Members of the team who unlike their capstone tutor all speak fluent Bahasa Indonesia sought advice from academics external to the capstone subject with expertise in this area. Another group is investigating problems of homelessness as linked to mental health, drug addiction and escaping domestic violence. The role of the capstone tutor is to support students in making contact with a range of academics and community experts who can contribute effectively to knowledge gathering in these complex and intersecting areas. There is no benefit in tutors giving the impression that they are across all areas; we would argue that this is impossible in authentic cross-disciplinary topics and projects. As such, the tutor’s stance as a facilitator in our capstone is more akin to a research-supervisor’s role than to that of a classroom teacher doggedly delivering testable content. We act as guides, therefore, to the process, rather than as directors of content. This process is aligned with the role of tutors in the independent inquiry and project categories described by Lee (2009). The role of the tutor is to support students through guiding questions, much as we would in research supervision, rather than by providing answers. Indeed, student groups, in their meetings with the tutor and in presenting to the whole class, are invited to return to key questions. Although the level and type of these questions can differ from those we might use with a post-graduate student, in many cases they are

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

233

similar: Why is this project/topic important to you individually and as a group? What do you hope to deliver? How have you allocated tasks and resources to individual members of the group, and what is the rationale? Are you working harmoniously and productively as a group, or how might you improve? Who else has done substantial and recent work on this topic, and what secondary sources have you found of direct relevance to your project? What original research might you undertake to enhance your project and contribute to knowledge in this field? Who or what organisations outside of the university are you intending to contact for information or advice? How will you go about making those contacts? If you are partnering with an outside organisation, what are its expectations about the relationship you will establish with them and what expectations do they have of particular outcomes? What are your delivery strategies? What is your ‘plan B’ if you are blocked? Who (else) do you imagine might be interested in your final report and other project outcomes? How might you disseminate your findings or project outcomes?

Managing Group Work It is generally accepted that group work in higher education settings is fraught for students. From the first, we took the position that some group dynamics and engagement challenges could, and should, be anticipated and addressed with explicit inclusion in the curriculum. As a result, we run early sessions that focus on the challenges experienced by groups, and strategies for resolving them. In line with the general philosophy that students actively engage in knowledge construction, they are then expected to investigate and respond to issues that they anticipate, and this activity forms the basis of the first assessment. As part of this process, students variously anticipate a range of common problems with group work including uneven contributions or dominance by some team members. Although the tutors provide a supportive structure, the aim is to empower students to take responsibility for the group challenges and to seek solutions as a team. This is important because, as Clouder (2009) notes, ‘responsibility can be empowering; conversely, being denied responsibility is disempowering’ (p. 289). To assist them with setting in-place processes that will empower them to take responsibility for these issues, each group is expected to draw up a short contract spelling out what is expected of members, and to set reasonable demands on themselves in terms of availability. Many of our students are in full-time work, have family and

234

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

other responsibilities, and live some distance from the campus. This means students need to be mindful of each other’s capacity to meet and explicitly set out their preferred communication and management processes at the outset of the project. Notwithstanding these processes, ongoing conflict does sometimes arise amongst members of the group, most typically around an individual’s availability and task completion. Each group is encouraged to meet with the tutor on a fortnightly or monthly basis. This time is used to explore whether there are emerging issues and work through options for students to address them. For example, if a student is experiencing problems in contributing as a result of anxiety about sharing their work, the group is encouraged to identify ways in which they might be inclusive. Where the issues are related to challenges with skill sets or more personal needs, individual students can also be supported through university services if necessary. Flexibility, beyond supporting students within their teams, is also needed. We have found that there are occasions where the team-based project process is unlikely to be successful. This occurs for a number of reasons, including personal challenges with external commitments or health. Respect for, and accommodation of, diversity of need in this regard is an element of our approach. As a result, students occasionally request to undertake an individual project. Where this is the case, the expected assessment deliverables are adjusted to reflect a proportionate outcome.

Overcoming Tribalism While Valuing Some Forms of Conflict A very different sort of conflict most precisely a sort of robust debate arises from the intellectual disagreements that invariably attend these capstone projects. As noted above, the capstone groups draw students from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds (across the social sciences and humanities). This provides scope for some highly cross-disciplinary projects in which different team members are able to contribute different knowledge and research skills. However, students sometimes commence the process unable to appreciate the knowledge, skills and experiences of fellow students. Put simply, with the absence of canonical and broad-based studies in the humanities and social sciences and where students specialise from the second year onwards, by the third year theoretical and methodological schisms abound.

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

235

Late pathway students with quite different disciplinary and educational experiences compound the complexity of the variations in positions and understandings. Cultural, gender and other differences might also without appropriate levels of respect and careful handling produce degrees of dissonance and for some, even a degree of social anxiety. This is particularly the case where the initial broad brief is for students to look at a particular complex problem or social issue and work out an intervention that might help to bring about change or contribute to knowledge about an issue. Students often strenuously debate the pros and cons of a particular issue as the focus of their projects. Not surprisingly, some of these intellectual disagreements within a group relate to students’ opposing political positions or worldviews. Other disagreements relate to preferred methods of researching a project or presenting findings or deciding on feasible and worthwhile outcomes. Most serious and authentic scholarly work in the humanities and social sciences allows for the registration of unresolved or competing standpoints, and we should expect no less from these capstone projects and reports. These intellectual conflicts are an important part of the learning process, and from the outset students are encouraged to politely disagree with one another and search for common ground (or make explicit areas where they will agree to disagree). Negotiation and resolution of these disagreements from differing or competing disciplinary perspectives is an important graduate capability and one that we explicitly describe as a part of the capstone process. The method of tutor facilitation for the group work through regular informal meetings and also through students’ formal class presentations provides an opportunity for students to debate the case for remaining committed to a particular disciplinary perspective and approach, or for justifying why the group chose a more crossdisciplinary or hybrid model. Students are advised that any problems of disciplinary tribalism should be discussed critically and reflexively in their group meetings as well as in their interim and final reports. Similarly, if our capstone projects include original research that delivers uncertain or ambiguous findings (for instance, where mixed-methods produce a statistical picture from a survey which does not align well with what people said in qualitative interviews), then students are encouraged to discuss these issues in their reports. This is another way in which the quest for authenticity should drive not only the choice of topics and projects, but also lead to frank disclosures of uncertainty or unresolved matters. As a result of being empowered to explicitly explore ambiguity

236

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

and varying perspectives, students are supported to develop a greater understanding of their respective epistemological and ontological positions.

Student Outcomes and a Brief Example Project The diversity in student paths, backgrounds and capabilities is an important part of our rationale for utilising broader personal histories and capabilities than those of a particular program of study. In 2013, 70 students from a wide range of disciplinary, educational and personal backgrounds were enrolled in the capstone; over 80% could be characterised as nontraditional. Nonetheless, the successful completion rate was over 90% and the work assessed is of a high quality moderated assessments are consistently resulting in over 70% of students achieving distinction or high distinction outcomes. No difference in average grades can be found between those students we would typically consider less-well prepared and those the most prepared for capstone study. Students also report that the experience is a steep personal growth curve in which they develop an appreciation for their own capabilities as well as the perspectives and capabilities of others. Student feedback is consistently positive, with 100% agreement in measures relating to the quality of the learning experience. Student comments also consistently support the use of authentic guided inquiry. They report a range of engagement benefits accruing from the freedom to choose a project in which they are interested, having the opportunity to take initiative with their own work, getting to know a diverse group of people and the knowledge gained from working with different groups and group members. We have argued that recognising and respecting the knowledge(s) and skills non-traditional students bring to university from their diverse communities is the basis for successful curriculum design in the capstone. This is demonstrably the case with our Indigenous students, where Indigenous knowledge and standpoints provide the bedrock for innovative courses. This also applies for other traditionally under-represented communities. In our capstone we see, again and again, students choosing to work on projects of direct relevance to their own communities and responding to this opportunity with enthusiasm and commitment. One very successful project was undertaken by a group of students who started without a strong focus. Some members of the group came from ‘first generation’ immigrant family backgrounds. Each member was

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

237

undertaking a different set of academic specialisations in their program. One member of the group explained why their diverse backgrounds benefited the project: Our group brought together a wealth of academic skills and knowledge together with a diversity of cultural experiences … Once we identified our broad topic of interest each group member located their individual area of interest within the chosen topic. This not only provided our inquiry with layers or depth but also acknowledged our individual voices in our overall project, and our successes throughout the project validated our sense of self-worth as both graduating students and people contributing to the society. (Student, 2013 cohort)

This group knew from the outset that they wanted to explore aspects of multicultural society. One student was interested in memory (from a psychological and psycho-social perspective). Another student, with a strong background in creative writing, was interested in narrative and the production of identity. A third student had skills in interviewing, and in video production. Two of the students had skills in desktop publishing and knowledge of copyright and other intellectual property issues. Two of the students understood both narrative research methods and related historical methodologies, and all students had some knowledge of theory. After some weeks of uncertainty, the group decided to focus on the role of food and cooking in ‘memory work’ and cultural maintenance. The group’s literature review of some highly theoretical writing around these themes was only a beginning, although it became an important component in their final academic report. They interviewed family friends, parents and grandparents. These digitally recorded interviews became cooking lessons, which in turn generated the revival of some old customs within the families, including preparing and bottling sauces. These occasions also generated some feasting (also recorded for the project report). The project outcomes were both an excellent academic report and a prototype book called ‘Vintage Recipes’. Post-graduation, the students are exploring the possibility of turning this book into a publication; one that celebrates their heritage and hybrid cultural identities. The engagement and ownership surrounding the project is evident in feedback from the group. We emphasise how this inquiry-based capstone subject helped these students acquire an especially valuable graduate capability, the capacity to recognise and foster the talents of colleagues in a professional setting: This was the most successful group project I participated in during my undergraduate study, and it positively changed my outlook on what a team project can be. One aspect I particularly enjoyed was uncovering the strengths of my teammates. We allowed

238

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

everyone in the group equal opportunity to contribute not through a sense of obligation or because it was fair or ‘the right thing to do’, but because we were genuinely interested in each person’s perspective and ability to contribute in a unique way. Perhaps it was partly due to this open attitude that contributions were of a high standard. (Student, 2013 cohort)

CONCLUSION Our students enter the capstone having had variable lengths and types of experience in higher education. In a context in which many students fail to complete subjects, learning activities that resonate with students are a crucial first step to engagement. An appreciation of the range of life-skills, experiences and knowledge(s) that students bring to the university and which they are able to bring to bear on their capstone work, are fundamental drivers in the design of this capstone. Often such knowledge(s) and life-skills are deeply rooted in communities and in many cases in Australia this connects to family migration experiences. This flexible crossdisciplinary and inquiry-based arts capstone has evolved into a highly successful subject in terms of students’ completions, academic results and as reflected in the students’ (anonymous) evaluations. However, high levels of flexibility bring particular challenges in the higher education context. Constraints such as budgets, timetables and staffing schedules, as well as management concerns regarding equity in assessment, all require justification for such an approach. Over time, it has become clear that curricula and pedagogical flexibility both support student autonomy in the choice of topic, methods and outcomes and have been key factors in the success of the subject. Anecdotal evidence indicates that some staff are concerned that the third-year arts cohort might not have the capacity to work independently or at an advanced level on complex problems. Demonstrated by the quality of the student work and contrary to conventional academic wisdom, the evidence from the literature, student outcomes and our experience suggest that prior academic scores or pathways are no barrier to student engagement or success in independent inquiry. By stepping back and allowing students to step up to the capstone challenge we found that most of the participants become capable managers of their own learning. Most become masters of a variety of professional projects that draw on disciplinary knowledge and skills and more generic skills acquired in the early years of their program. As a result of this approach, students are supported but

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

239

also empowered to develop a sense of personal and professional identity that enables them to engage with the world as autonomous learners and actors. We argue that, with a scaffolded approach and appropriate supports, the capstone subject is the perfect place within the degree program for this cohort (and others we imagine) to undertake complex inquirybased projects.

NOTES 1. ‘First in Family’ is a term commonly used in Australia to describe those students who are the first in their immediate family to attend university, forming a part of the cohort often referred to as ‘non-traditional’. 2. Offerings include: Advanced English for speakers of other languages; Asian studies; Communication studies; Gender studies; History; Literary studies; Media studies; Performance studies; Political Science; Professional Writing; Psychology; Social Research Methods; Sociology; Visual Arts and Vietnamese.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the students involved in the example projects detailed in this chapter and Daniel Loton, Centre for Collaborative Learning and Teaching, Victoria University, for his assistance in preparation of the chapter. Support for the development of this chapter has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching through a National Senior Teaching Fellowship. The views presented do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

REFERENCES Adderley, K., Ashwin, C., Bradbury, P., Freeman, J., Goodlad, S., Greene, J., … Uren, O. (1975). Project methods in higher education. Guildford, England: Society for Research into Higher Education. Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 256 265. doi:10.1080/713696156 Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Virginia, VA: Stylus Publishing.

240

ANDREW FUNSTON AND NICOLETTE LEE

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). Educating students for self-authorship: Learning partnerships to achieve complex outcomes. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. Abingdon, England: Routledge. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press. Clouder, L. (2009). ‘Being responsible’: Students’ perspectives on trust, risk, and work-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 289 301. doi:10.1080/13562510902898858 Gulbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309 327. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782462 Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67 78). Maidenhead, England: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press. Healey, M., Lannin, L., Derounian, J., Stibbe, A., Bray, S., Deane, J., ... Simmons, C. (2012). Rethinking final year projects and dissertations. York: Higher Education Academy. Healey, M., Lannin, L., Stibbe, A., & Derounian, J. (2013). Developing and enhancing undergraduate final-year projects and dissertations. National teaching fellowship scheme. The Higher Education Academy, York, England. Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education: Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 51(2), 287 314. doi:10.1007/ s10734-004-6386-5 Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry-learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99 107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 Kift, S., Butler, D., Field, R., McNamara, J., Brown, C., & Treloar, C. (2013). Curriculum renewal in legal education. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-curriculum-renewal-legal-education Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE. A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1 20. doi:10.5204/ intjfyhe.v1i1.13 Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Bulletin. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75 86. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep4102_1 Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Lee, N. (2006). Design as a learning cycle: A conversational experience. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 3(2), 12 22. Lee, N. (2009). Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: A typology. Design Studies, 30(5), 541 560. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.03.002 Lee, N. (2014). How can we prepare university students for the real world? The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/how-can-we-prepare-university-students-forthe-real-world-22117

The Graduating Project: A Capstone in Arts

241

Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85 101. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.499166 McNamara, J., Brown, C., Field, R., Kift, S., Butler, D., & Treloar, C. (2011). Capstones: Transitions and professional identity. Paper presented at World Association of Cooperative Education (WACE) 17th World Conference on Cooperative and WorkIntegrated Education, Drexel University, Philadelphia. Retrieved from http://eprints. qut.edu.au/47497 Monteiro, S., & Sharma, R. (2010, April). Educating with certainty for future career uncertainty? Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2010 Asia Pacific Association for International Education Annual Conference and Exhibition, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1715 Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Smith-Nelson, R. M. (2011). Educating for an entrepreneurial career: Developing opportunity-recognition ability. Australian Journal of Career Development, 20(3), 47 55. doi:10.1177/103841621102000308 Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’Steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2011). Enablers and contraints to the use of inquiry-based learning in undergraduate education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1). doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.507300 van Acker, E., Bailey, J., Wilson, K., & French, E. (2014). Capping them off! Exploring and explaining the patterns in undergraduate capstone subjects in Australian business schools. Higher Education Research and Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.890567 Victoria University. (2014). Excellent, engaged and accessible. The university of opportunity: Victoria University’s strategic plan updated for 2014 2016 [Report]. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University. Retrieved from http://www.vu.edu.au/about-us/visionmission/strategic-plan Victoria University. (n.d.). College of Arts: About us. Retrieved from http://www.vu.edu.au/ about-us/academic-colleges/arts

CREATING AN ‘EMPORIUM OF WONDER’ AT MANCHESTER MUSEUM Menaka Munro and Hannah-Lee Chalk ABSTRACT With over 4.5 million objects and specimens from both the natural and human worlds, Manchester Museum, part of The University of Manchester, is the largest University Museum in the United Kingdom. By virtue of its position within The University of Manchester, learning and research are central to Manchester Museum’s work. The Museum has a track-record of educational work, from the ‘Children’s Museum Club’, a travelling school loans service set up in 1954, to the founding of a dedicated Education Department in 1981. Throughout its long history, the Museum has always held objects and collections at the heart of its popular learning offer. More recently, the growth of the learning team led to the creation of a set of learning principles to underpin its work. These principles that learning should be object-centred, dialogic, imaginative, personalised, multi-sensory, collaborative and exploratory are all based on inquiry-based learning and aim to foster a research-based disposition in learners.

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 243 270 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001013

243

244

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

As a University Museum with engagement at its heart, Manchester Museum is now looking to transform the third floor of its building into a space themed entirely around ‘research’. This redevelopment, due to open in March 2015, will see the creation of a new visitor research space ‘The Study’. This unique development will extend the successful inquirybased learning approach used with schools and colleges, into a public research space for all visitors, with collections at its heart.

Thirty 7 8-year-old children, accompanied by a teacher and two parents, arrive at the Museum. They are greeted by a postgraduate student their session leader and taken into the Discovery Centre where they discover what a palaeontologist’s job involves. The class receives some basic training in how to ask questions and how to use evidence clues from real fossils to inform their answers. The children are encouraged to slow down their thought process, and rather than guess answers, to think about the supporting evidence: it’s all well and good being right, but it is even better to know why you’re right. After three quarters of an hour, the session leader announces that there has been a murder the children (and adults) gasp in horror! The class are informed that the Museum has asked them to carry out an investigation, as detectives, in order to solve the mystery. The class willingly accepts the challenge and are taken over to the Museum’s ‘Fossil Gallery’ where they discover a crime scene, cordoned off with crime scene tape, that shows a series of footprints and bones. Working in teams, the class use the crime scene to discover the identity of the victim, and to gather some evidence about the creatures that were present at the time of the murder. They are then led back to the Discovery Centre, where they are introduced to five suspects: an Ichthyosaur, T-rex, Mammoth, Triceratops and Tarbosaurus. After examining a range of evidence fossils, diagrams and data about each suspect, the teams are asked to formulate a theory that explains ‘who dunnit’, how and why, which they share with their classmates (often through a dramatic re-enactment). More often than not, each team will offer a different explanation, and before the end of the session, they are asked if they think that they have the correct explanation and whether they want to know the answer (usually, they all do). After a drum roll, the leader reveals that ‘the answer is … we don’t know!’ usually to the groans of pupils. At this age, pupils are fixated with providing (or at least knowing) the ‘correct answer’ and initially, the revelation that we don’t know the answer is usually met with disappointment an explanation is required.

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

245

The session leader likens the work of a palaeontologist to that of a detective, explaining that while a detective may gather evidence from witnesses, photographs, images, or written sources, palaeontologists have no such luxuries. All they have is bones and footprints. As the class has demonstrated, different people can examine the same evidence and still come up with entirely different ways of interpreting it. As the session draws to an end, they discover that this lack of certainty is inherent in palaeontology; while we may never know precisely what happened, that does not make palaeontology any less interesting or worthwhile. In fact, it is precisely this uncertainty that makes the science all the more interesting. It is the end of the session and as the class leaves, they thank their session leader. Some children also express their intentions to become palaeontologists, while others are still debating why their explanation was correct. This is an account of Manchester Museum’s ‘Dinosaur Detectives’ session that, with 78 classes (2,177 pupils) visiting during 2012 2013, is one of the most popular sessions offered by the Museum. On account of the process through which pupils are guided, the application of research principles, the creative, collaborative, authentic and unfinished/open ended nature of the session, ‘Dinosaur Detectives’, like much of the Museum’s learning programme, is underpinned by the principles of inquiry-based learning. For the teachers, the novelty of the setting, the use of real objects, and the opportunity for the class to engage with an expert who can answer difficult questions and facilitate pupils as they work through the research process, is a winning formula (not to mention the subject knowledge and core/transferable skills gained throughout the session). For the Museum, this session not only uses the collection and involves postgraduate research students from the University, but it also reflects the Museum’s values, namely its aims to be respectful, interdisciplinary, provocative and responsible, and for users to experience the Museum as witty, friendly, intelligent, knowledgeable and accessible (Manchester Museum, 2012, p. 3). For the learning programme, the involvement of a facilitator, the set duration of the session and group size, and the management of the session through the bookings procedure are conducive to the provision of inquiry-based sessions. But what happens if we remove all of these certainties; can the principles of inquiry-based learning be extended to incorporate a public space, and how can such a space be developed? This chapter aims to explore these questions; describing how a University Museum can become part of the vision of its host institution The University of Manchester to become one of the top 25 research universities in the world by 2020 (The University of Manchester, 2012). This chapter describes how a museum connected to this university is seeking to incorporate its work into the

246

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

larger research culture of the institution. Following a brief introduction to Manchester Museum and the broader context in which it is located, we will introduce The Study, a unique research space that is due to open in 2015.

AN INTRODUCTION TO MANCHESTER MUSEUM With over 4.5 million objects and specimens from both the natural and human worlds, the University of Manchester’s Manchester Museum is the largest University Museum in the United Kingdom. It has a free admission policy and welcomes over 340,000 visitors per year (figures for 2012 13; of which 25,791 visitors were from schools). The Museum has a long history of educational work: from its founding mission to become an institution that was primarily concerned with education, to programmes such as the ‘Children’s Museum Club’ (a travelling school loans service, set up in 1954), and the establishment of a dedicated Education Department in 1981 (Alberti, 2009). Throughout its history, the Museum has held objects and collections at the heart of its popular learning programmes. Unlike many museums who rely upon second-rate ‘handling’ or ‘education’ collections, the Museum works closely with curatorial and conservation staff in order to ensure that the majority of programmes use real (as opposed to replica) items from the Museum’s accessioned collection. In spite of its location, around a mile from the city centre in the middle of The University of Manchester’s South Campus, the Museum has always served a community that extends beyond the campus. Thus, while the Museum provides a programme of school sessions, tailored to reflect the distinct needs and interests of pupils at a range of levels, its increasingly diverse public programme has attracted a growing number of public visitors over the last decade. Responsibility for the development and provision of programmes for both its formal school visits and public audience lies with the Learning and Engagement team, whose work extends across all of the Museum’s functions. Historically, Manchester Museum has occupied the middle ground between a University Museum and a Civic Museum on account of its joint funding from both the University and the City. Although the latter support ceased in the early 1990s when the Museum became the sole responsibility of the University (Alberti, 2009), it continues to function as both an academic and municipal institution. Thus, while the overall picture of the University Museum sector in the United Kingdom is one of ‘largely

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

247

inaccessible collections, used, sometimes in a very limited way, by students’, Manchester Museum is one of the few exceptions that makes an important contribution to the broader sector (Hooper-Greenhill, Phillips, & Woodham, 2009, p. 177). On account of its hybrid position, Manchester Museum has been influenced by developments in both the museum sector and higher education.

The Institutional Context Over the last decade, the work of the Museum has been influenced by a number of sector-wide initiatives and strategies. In 2000, the government published a report titled ‘The Learning Power of Museums: A vision for museum education’, in which it stated its commitment to ‘seeing the learning power of museums fully exploited’ (DCMS & DfEE, 2000, p. 25). In response to this vision, and in an attempt to overcome the weaknesses that had been identified as hampering its achievement, ‘Resource’ (The Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives, which subsequently became the Museums Libraries and Archives Council, MLA) proposed a new regional strategy and funding structure for museums Renaissance in the Regions (Resource, 2001) along with a framework for placing learning experiences of users at the core of the work of museums, libraries and archives ‘Inspiring Learning for All’ (Resource, 2003). In response to these initiatives, Manchester Museum undertook a period of internal consultation, led by the Education Department, which ultimately resulted in the identification of the following set of values that underpin all of its work: the ‘Principles of Learning’. • Learning should be dialogic, a two-way process that enables us to learn at the same time. • Learning should be personalised, enabling learners to make sense of the collection in the context of their own lives. • Learning should involve philosophy and imagination. • Learning should provide the freedom to explore and make choices. • Learning should be collaborative, a shared social experience. • Learning should be multi-sensory. These ‘Principles of Learning’ continue to provide a valuable reference point for contemporary programmes. However, and as we shall describe below, ‘The Study’ provides an opportunity to extend their application, beyond programming, to a permanent public space within the museum.

248

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

While the Museum’s work has been subject to the various developments that have impacted the entirety of the museum sector, its governance by an academic institution is particularly influential with regard to its funding and mission. A number of authors have considered the ways in which University Museums benefit from their position within institutions that are primarily concerned with research and innovation. Stanbury, for example, notes that: ‘University museums are the only museums that have liberal access to the inventive, fresh ideas of students and the experience and deep understanding of research’ (2005, p. 2). MacDonald identifies three core strengths of University Museums, namely specialised collections, a tradition of quality presentation and heightened public profile (2003). Tirrell expands on these, adding: resources and people, scholarship and research, international contacts, quality provision, special programmes, special services, museum studies programmes and community engagement (2003). Relations between universities and museums are not always harmonious. Heina¨mies, for example, explains that the University Museum is in many cases ‘… regarded as a “parasite” from the point of view of the university’s primary mission of teaching and research …’ (2006, p. 1). Furthermore, a number of authors have highlighted the uneasy position of University Museums between academia and the museum sector due to their oftenconflicting values (see, e.g. Arnold-Forster, 2006; Yerbury, 2003). The exclusive territory of the University Museum is characterised by tensions arising from an ongoing struggle to identify with the ‘dynamic’ nature of the University institution and the notion of ‘permanence’ inherent in the concept of a Museum. Nonetheless, University Museums may, in some cases, find that their governance by institutions positioned at the forefront of knowledge and innovation places them in a position of leadership for the rest of the museum sector. Indeed, this has been the case for the Manchester Museum, as is apparent from the following: As a University Museum, the Manchester Museum (United Kingdom) has a track record for developing collaborative and audience-focused projects and programmes, whilst simultaneously challenging staff to be experimental and innovative to take risks rather than play safe. (Brown, 2011, p. 129)

Taken as ‘… the dynamic process of being open to wonder and puzzlement, and coming to know and understand the world’ (Galileo Education Network, 2004), inquiry-based learning is intrinsic to the work of University Museums. By virtue of their position within institutions that are funded for and led by research, and the recent successes in increasing the diversity of their audiences, they provide a natural interface between

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

249

authentic research and the general public. Laetsch (2000) suggests that University Museums should focus on research, much like the institutions in which they are situated. For Laetsch, the important point is that research is not simply a product a knowledge-centred outcome but is, rather, a ‘process of exploration’ (2000, p. 86). By acknowledging this process by encouraging visitors to ask and answer their own questions University Museums can become ‘experiments in how to elicit wonder, curiosity and continued interest’ (Laetsch, 2000, p. 86). As one of the UK’s 24 ‘Russell Group’ universities, The University of Manchester is ‘committed to maintaining the very best research, an outstanding teaching and learning experience, and unrivalled links with business and the public sector’ (Russell Group, 2014). In spite of the benefits of providing teaching alongside an active programme of research, universities have often struggled to maintain a balanced relationship between these two distinct outputs. Indeed, it was in recognition that the emphasis placed on research activities in UK universities was having a detrimental effect on the quality of teaching and learning, that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) initiated the ‘Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning’ (CETL) programme. In a move to ‘enhance the status of learning and teaching in higher education, recognising that esteem and reward systems within HEIs [Higher Education Institutions] were often more likely to recognise excellence in research than teaching’ (HEFCE, 2012), HEFCE supported the CETL programme through the provision of £315 million funding that was made available between 2005 and 2010. In order to promote excellence in teaching and learning, the programme led to the establishment of 74 centres, of which the University of Manchester’s Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning (CEEBL) was one (Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning [CEEBL], 2010). Within the university sector, recent years have seen a ‘shift away from more passive methods, which involve the transmission of knowledge to students, to more facilitative teaching methods through which students are expected to construct their own knowledge and understandings’ (Kahn & O’Rourke, 2004, p. 5). In the higher education context, inquiry-based learning has become increasingly formalised. Parallel to this, museums have embraced inquiry-based learning techniques in new ways that build on their unique strengths as institutions with vast collections of material that exist outside of the formal education system. The University Museum provides a bridge between the use of inquiry-based learning as a formal method of teaching and learning within the higher education sector, and its more casual adoption within the museum sector. Before considering the

250

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

development of The Study in more detail, the following section will provide a brief introduction to the museum learning context within which this project is taking place.

Learning in the Museum Throughout the 20th century, a specialised area of museum education developed within the sector that focused on methods of learning from and with objects, emphasised inquiry and appealed to visitors’ prior experiences and interests. Particularly throughout the latter quarter of the 20th century, the educational role of the museum has become formalised and now constitutes a major part of the museum’s role. This acceptance of learning as a core function of museums (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994, p. 65) has led to a growing interest in education and learning theories, of which Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences model (1985), Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984), and Csikszentmihalyi’s work on motivation (1985) are particularly common. Learning in the museum has undergone a period of considerable change in recent years. Museums, much like universities, have moved away from the one-way transmission of ‘facts’ to passive visitors, towards a more constructivist model, in which learning is understood as an active, ongoing process. This shift is apparent from the declining use of didactic tools, such as worksheets, and their replacement with creative, multi-disciplinary provision, such as the Dinosaur Detectives session that was described above. On account of its personalised nature, learning in the museum is difficult to predict or prescribe. The unique ways in which individuals learn and the extent to which the museum may (or may not) impact this learning become particularly apparent in Falk and Dierking’s ‘Interactive Experience Model’ (1992). Understood as ‘a dialogue between an individual and his or her environment through time [or as]… a contextually driven effort to make meaning’ (Falk & Dierking, 2004, p. 142), for Falk and Dierking, learning in the museum is shaped by 11 factors (see Fig. 1) (1992). From this model, it becomes apparent that the ways in which museums can influence the experiences of their visitors are limited; while a museum may be able to influence certain aspects of the learner’s physical context, they have much less control when it comes to the personal and sociocultural factors. Since museums provide opportunities to learn outside of the compulsory formal education system, they can be understood as ‘free-choice learning’ environments. At this point, it is worth acknowledging that, following

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

Fig. 1.

251

The Interactive Experience Model (Based on Falk & Dierking, 1992, p. 5).

Dierking et al. (2003), the term ‘free-choice learning’ is used in preference to ‘informal learning’ as a way of acknowledging the importance of motivation and interest in driving the learning process (cf. Falk, 2005, p. 271). As Falk and Dierking clarify ‘Free-choice learning describes the non-linear, self-directed learning that occurs when individuals have primary responsibility for determining the what, when, where, how, why, and with whom of learning’ (2012, p. 1063). With this in mind, as Fig. 2 illustrates, it becomes clear that a museum is just one of many different environments in which individuals may learn. Dorie et al. provide a useful system for comparing different learning environments in their taxonomy of formal and informal learning environments (2012). The Formal and Informal Learning Environments (FILE) taxonomy comprises four different scales of learning, relating to where the responsibility for learning originates (self-directed or collaborative), the extent to which learners are engaged in the learning process (active or passive), the purpose of learning (learner centred or goal oriented) and the

252

Fig. 2.

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Free-Choice Learning Environments (Based on Dierking, 2005, p. 153, Fig. 1: Science and Technology Learning Infrastructure).

degree of choice involved in participation (mandatory or voluntary) (Dorie et al., 2012). By analysing different learning environments according to the four scales, the informal nature of the museum learning environment and its features relative to other learning environments become clear (see Fig. 3). Although the FILE taxonomy provides a useful means of comparing different types of learning environment, it fails to acknowledge the different types of provision that may be offered within any one category. Take, for example, curricular learning (category 1 in Fig. 3), which, in general terms, can be understood as a compulsory activity in which the learner remains relatively passive and has little control over what is being learned. While we do not dispute the formal nature of curricular learning, we nonetheless question whether curricular learning is always formal. Likewise, while the museum is, in its broadest sense, an informal environment (designed learning environments number 2 in Fig. 3), that is not to say that all museum

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

253

Fig. 3. FILE Taxonomy Showing the Relative Position of Three Common Learning Environments in Terms of Four Features of Learning Environments (Based on Dorie et al., 2012, p. 12, Fig. 1: Tornado Diagram of Environments to Scales of Formal and Informal Learning).

learning is collaborative, learner oriented, active and voluntary. How formal is the learning environment when a child participates in a museum session as part of a class trip that has been organised by their teacher to build on a particular aspect of the curriculum? Likewise, if an amateur enthusiast visits a museum to see a particular exhibition, how informal is that environment if the exhibit relies upon didactic labels to transmit information that a curator deems to be of interest? By considering some of the different types of learning opportunities that may be offered by museums, as in Fig. 4, the FILE taxonomy can be used to present a more accurate understanding of a learning environment. With this in mind, and taking into account Falk and Dierking’s (1992) 11 factors that may shape the museum experience (Fig. 1), it becomes clear that the museum constitutes a particularly complex learning environment. Indeed, in spite of any attempts to regulate or shape the learning opportunities that are available for visitors, the ways in which individuals engage (or don’t) with museums and their collections the learning that takes place is determined by the visitors themselves, and how and why they have chosen

254

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Fig. 4. FILE Taxonomy Showing the Relative Position of Different Types of Learning that May Occur in the Museum (Based on Dorie et al., 2012, p. 12, Fig. 1: Tornado Diagram of Environments to Scales of Formal and Informal Learning).

to visit. Indeed, the freedom that visitors are afforded within the museum environment the diverse ways in which an individual may choose to engage with the institution, its collections, members of staff, etc. is precisely what Falk and Dierking are referring to when they describe museums as ‘free-choice learning’ environments. This freedom, however, is not without its challenges; there is a fine line between freedom and frustration, choice and confusion. On account of both the status of museums as informal learning environments the extent to which visitors are free to choose how they use and engage with museums and their multi-layered and varied approach to provision, these institutions provide an interesting context for exploring inquiry-based learning. Is it possible to facilitate and support learning within museums without impacting on the visitor’s freedom to shape their own experience? In attempting to extend the principles of inquiry-based learning to the development of a public research space, such questions are particularly relevant to the development of The Study. After briefly introducing the broader context of The Study, the following section will explore in detail the ways in which inquiry-based learning has informed both the content development process and the overall aims of the space.

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

255

THE STUDY Manchester Museum is located in The University of Manchester’s South Campus on Oxford Road, and while it still occupies the original purposebuilt gothic building (the ‘1885 Building’), designed by Alfred Waterhouse, numerous extensions have been added over the years as both the collections and visitor numbers have increased. In 2009, the Museum embarked upon a major gallery refurbishment programme, which led to the redevelopment of two natural history galleries (Living Worlds and Nature’s Library which opened in 2011 and 2013, respectively), three archaeology galleries (Ancient Worlds which opened in 2012), and the Vivarium (which opened in 2013). The final component of this programme is the ‘Third Floor Redevelopment’ project, which aims to transform the Museum’s largest gallery space, 744 m2, into an area that is themed entirely around research. Located at the top of the Museum, the third floor has, in recent years, functioned as a multi-use space. It serves as a picnic space for families, and includes a temporary exhibition space for exhibitions related to research outputs linked to The University of Manchester, and a formal research space the ‘Collections Study Centre’ for visiting researchers and students wanting to examine the collection in closer detail. The mixture of uses within this space created a chaotic environment, in which researchers found it difficult to find peace to study and families experienced a long journey from the Museum’s entrance to (often overcrowded) eating area. In 2013, the decision was made to transform this space. The family eating and learning areas for younger children are being moved to the more accessible lower floors, but the decision was made to retain the Collections Study Centre and temporary exhibition area on the third floor, leaving a large (approximately 400 m2) space to fill. The Third Floor Redevelopment project was seen as an opportunity to build on the strengths of the Museum’s existing Learning and Engagement programme, and its position as a University Museum. As such, it was decided that the project would be led by the Museum’s Learning Manager. After considering the current use of the space, its location at the top of the building, and the current interest in public engagement, it was decided that the third floor should be focused on research, in the broadest sense. The large central space has been given the working title of ‘The Study’ building on the idea that people can use the space to harness their individual research potential. This new space would provide an ideal way of tying together the formal academic research space (Collections Study Centre) at one end, and the temporary exhibition area, located at the other.

256

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

The Development Process The initial task of the Learning Manager was to create two teams for the development of The Study a Content Development team and an Operational team. This chapter focuses on the process through which members of the Content Development team are working. The Content Development team includes curatorial staff, conservators, learning programme coordinators, marketing and visitor services staff, thus representing a cross section of the Museum’s workforce. The initial challenge to this development process was how to translate the essence of a successful, generally facilitated, learning programme based on the principles of inquiry-based learning into a physical learning space that may be un-facilitated for large parts of the day. This type of development process has no comparable model within the sector, and while it shares some similarities with the ‘lab in the gallery’ (cf. Meyer, 2011) and the science centre ethos (cf. Wellington, 1990), the research focus of an un-facilitated space set it apart. For this reason, a new framework had to be created for this development, for which the Principles of Learning provided an obvious starting point. The Learning Manager chose to approach the development process as an inquiry-based learning challenge in itself; the question being how a well-established learning model could be adapted into a physical space used by general visitors. The content development process for The Study can be broken into three strands, namely values, themes and research areas, which are all interlinked, as shown in Fig. 5. For the purpose of clarity, however, each strand will be considered independently. This section will document the development process to date and raises a number of questions. How could an inquiry-based learning framework be adapted, with a high level of authenticity, for a public space? Can a disposition for research be facilitated in the public without direct instruction? How could the development process for The Study stay true to its purpose? Will the ambition and underlying ethos be lost in the translation to a physical space?

Values In the absence of any comparable methodologies, the first task for the Content Development team was to create a set of values that could underpin the development work and content for The Study. A natural starting point for these values was the Principles of Learning (as introduced above),

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

Fig. 5.

257

Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Relationships between the Three CoreStrands of Content Development, Over Time.

258

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

as they provide an already well-established and well-tested framework within the Museum. The initial focus for the team was the relevance of the Principles to their particular area of work. Members were asked how the Principles relate to what they do, how they manifest themselves in their current work, and how they might emerge in the future. This activity initially generated some predictable connections to people’s everyday work, such as the exploratory nature of curatorial work and the dialogic nature of digital engagement. With further facilitation, however, the team started to expand their understandings of the Principles beyond their initial responses, and each team member ultimately identified at least one way in which their work related to every principle. For example, the multi-sensory nature of the conservator’s work was identified straight away. However, following additional facilitation, the ways in which a conservator must interrogate an object in order to identify the most appropriate course of action/treatment were likened to a form of dialogue. Such a process was particularly valuable as it strengthened the connections between members of the team and the Principles of Learning. The range of links that were identified by team members confirmed the relevance of the Principles across the Museum and as a backbone for the development of The Study. However, the discussion arising from the exercise also highlighted some gaps in the scope of the Principles; important aspects of their work and the work of the Museum that did not fall within an existing strand of the Principles. Amongst others, missing elements included emotional connections, authenticity and cutting edge knowledge. From these discussions, a set of values was agreed amongst the team, that would underpin all further development work on The Study. These values (namely, personalised, multi-sensory, exploratory, collaborative, imaginative and dialogic learning) combine the existing Principles with important omissions (see Fig. 6). Having generated the agreed values, the team undertook some fieldwork to find out whether these same values appeared in other spaces. One of these case studies was the ‘Experiment’ gallery at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. Originally known as ‘Xperiment’ and developed in the late 1980s for the purpose of introducing visitors to the basic scientific principles behind the Museum’s other galleries (DCMS & DfEE, 2000, pp. 24 25), a scaled-down version of the gallery was re-launched and renamed in 2010. This child-focused interactive space provided an ideal test bed for the new values. Team members were initially asked to explore the space for themselves, before identifying any examples of the values in action. For example, an

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

259

Fig. 6. Diagram Illustrating the Words that Were Generated as a Result of Exploring the Links between the Work of the Museum/Individuals, and the Principles of Learning.

activity area incorporating smell, touch and sound was easily categorised as multi-sensory. However, the team was then asked to think about which of the values were missing from the space and to think about what values underpinned the development of the space in theory, and how many of these could be seen in practice. This exercise demonstrated the challenge of translating theoretical principles into a physical exhibit or space. To maintain the connection to the values, the team regularly carries out this exercise in new settings, such as Science Gallery, Dublin and The Bureau by Mark Dion, an art installation at the Museum. Continually revisiting the values and thinking about the success or failure of such frameworks in other locations helps the team to focus on how easily intended outcomes can become lost in the content development process. This also empowers the team members to start to critique each other’s content development against a shared set of values. Through this process of constant critique, it is hoped that the space will be a truer reflection of the values than is often the case.

260

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Themes Whilst the topic of research ties the entire third floor together in a coherent way, it was felt that such a large space might feel daunting for the visitor. In order to provide a framework of inquiry for visitors, it was felt that The Study would benefit from additional structure, and it was decided that the space would be divided into a set of themes. To generate this set of themes, the Learning Manager initially invited members of the team to think about an inspirational space; somewhere that they had either found productive for carrying out their own research, or a space that had inspired them to find out more. This activity generated a wide variety of interpretations: from libraries, exhibitions and museums, to concepts such as green walls and architectural movements. The whole team shared their personal reasons behind their chosen spaces and were encouraged to draw out the basic features that had either enabled their own research or inspired a desire to inquire further. By pooling together both the features and the descriptive words associated with the spaces, a number of categories began to

Fig. 7.

Image Showing the Thematic Arrangement of Words that Were Generated during the Inspirational Spaces Activity.

261

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

emerge, namely atmosphere, directions and routes, structure, a place for/ to, aesthetic, feelings, a place that evokes (see Fig. 7). The team was then encouraged to recall as many words as possible, related to the categories that had been used to describe their inspirational spaces. This exercise generated a bank of terms related to broad lines of inquiry for The Study. Seven preliminary themes emerged from this, namely feel, look, discover, make, connect, communicate and share. Subsequent meetings encouraged discussion about the terminology used for the themes, the concepts behind the themes and the ways in which the themes related to each other. This resulted in some debate around certain words and whether they were accurate descriptors of the underlying inquiry route. A particularly contentious example is that of ‘look’, which prompted debate around the limitations of using a visual metaphor in what should be a fully accessible space. Certain themes, such as communicate, were felt to overlap in a confusing way with other themes (in this case share and connect) or to not stand alone enough to warrant a distinct area. As the themes were established to provide a framework for inquiry, the team needed to consider how they reflected the Museum’s work, research and collection, as well as the interests of the visitor. Focusing on a single theme, each team member was asked to express, as widely as possible, how the theme related both to the work of the Museum in general and their work at the Museum in particular. By sharing their thoughts with a partner in a ‘speed dating’ activity, this exercise confirmed the strengths and weaknesses of particular themes, either as inquiry strands, or in terms of their connection to the Museum (see Fig. 8). This process led to the revision of the original themes for The Study, and at the time of writing, the working themes are now as follows: wonder, discover, feel, make and share. Initial themes

Revised themes

Current themes

Wonder

Wonder

Discover

Discover

Feel Make Share Connect

Feel Make

Look Discover Feel Make Share Connect Communicate

Connect Share

Communicate Collaborate

Fig. 8.

Showing the Development of Themes for the Study over Time.

262

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

As is apparent from Fig. 8, the process of refining the themes has led to a number of changes to those that were originally identified. As a result of the genuinely exploratory nature of the content development process, in which there is no pre-determined outcome, such changes are to be expected; this is, after all, an inquiry-led process. While this organic approach has allowed the team to revisit and refine the thematic areas within the study, as the project progresses, the process will start to extend beyond the content development Team, and the institution, to include consultation with individuals and groups who are likely to use the space.

Research The third area of content development concerns the creation of strands of inquiry to sit within the themes. This aspect required a shared understanding of the notion of research amongst the team. As The Study ties together two areas of more formal academic research the Collections Study Centre and the Temporary Exhibitions Area it provides an important transition between the private/public and formal/informal work of the Museum. It was therefore essential that the notion of research was understood in its broadest sense, namely across a spectrum that ranges from formal, planned academic research, to informal, unplanned investigations and discoveries. The Content Development team was generally more aware of and comfortable with the formal outputs of academic research, particularly those related to their own subject area. As a starting point, the Content Development team created a research library by gathering together examples of academic research related to all areas of the Museum’s work. The team was also asked to select and share a piece of research that they personally found inspiring, and this led to discussions surrounding the features that drew them to make their choices. For example, factors such as the public impact of research and the novel use of collections were felt to be significant. During this exercise, the team also identified and compared the different research processes and methods that were used (e.g. including a clear hypothesis, research questions, methodology, tools and outputs). Alongside this work, the team also considered how the different examples of research related to the working themes and values for The Study. As well as illustrating the breadth of topics that may be explored within The Study, the exercise also resulted in a shared understanding of research as a process of inquiry amongst the team.

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

263

With a better of understanding of formal research, the team moved on to consider research at the opposite end of the spectrum, namely that which involves pursuing an interest or hobby. To ensure that equal value was placed on both formal and informal research, it was important to consider interests and hobbies using a similar framework to that mentioned above. Therefore, the team was asked to prepare a short summary of their own personal interests and hobbies (outside of work), and also to identify a famous amateur (i.e. non-professional enthusiast without formal academic qualifications), thinking in particular about the motivations behind their research. After sharing their own passions and interests, and their chosen amateur, the team identified some common motivations and techniques. This led to the realisation that enjoyment, escapism and genuine interest were some of the important motivating factors for informal research, and that that in pursuing such interests, individuals drew upon a diverse range of sources (see Fig. 9). With a better understanding of the spectrum of research and the factors that tie together formal research with more ‘hobby based’ inquiry, we needed to work out how a space could be created in which visitors receive sufficient support to feel comfortable enough to pursue their own interests and lines of inquiry, without restricting their freedom to explore or limiting the uses of the space. Although the project is ongoing, it is useful to provide the reader with an initial sense of the look and feel of the space. Visitors will be encouraged to use the space and engage with the collections in ways that are entirely different from the rest of the Museum. This will necessarily require an atmosphere in which playfulness, mess and noise are permitted. The Study will not look, sound or feel like the rest of the Museum. It is apparent that the development of a space that aims to engage visitors in the ongoing process of research a process that is, by its nature, unfinished and always in process without creating an ugly or messy space, will prove challenging: ‘How do we balance curatorship so we satisfy both the aesthetic and the underlying assumptions of both the institution and the visitor?’ (Heimlich, 2013, p. 135).

An Initial Vision for the Study Having established content work based on values, themes and a working understanding of research, we have reached a point where we can better articulate a vision for The Study. Ideally, The Study will be a beautiful space an Emporium of Wonder to inspire researchers of all ages, from

264

Fig. 9.

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Diagrams Illustrating the Relationship between the Themes for The Study and the Methods Available for the Team to Pursue their Interests.

curious teenagers to amateur enthusiasts. This space must be able to reflect changes in subject knowledge through the addition or replacement of resources regularly. The space will be divided into themes currently: wonder, discover, feel, make and share (which will itself be sub-divided into connect, collaborate and communicate) that reflect the Museum’s work. Within each thematic area there will be objects from the Museum’s collection, resources (digital and physical), books, tools and decoration that prompt and

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

265

facilitate the visitor’s own lines of inquiry. Although the development process is ongoing, the space will be divided into the following broad themes (exact titles to be confirmed). Below are examples of the direction of content development for each working theme: 1. Wonder sense of awe and wonder created by museum objects; curiosity sparked by size and scale (e.g., microscopic insects); sense of amazement provoked by beautiful, remarkable or unfamiliar things; a feeling of curiosity. 2. Discover a place to bring your own discoveries with tools to record them and access to experts; great discoveries locally (The University of Manchester); an area with resources to help you discover. 3. Feel sensation and learning through touching objects; emotional responses and reactions to objects and collections; objects as part of health and well-being. 4. Make modern and ancient crafts; a place to make, for example, 3D printer; what is made from and by the natural world. 5. Share (communicate, collaborate and connect) a space to share physically and digitally; performance; a space to relax comfortably together, and to make new partnerships. It is expected that each thematic space will be contained and delineated from the other sections whilst feeling part of the whole aesthetic. Each area should feel distinct on account of reflecting its overarching theme. Ideally, each section’s resources will make the most of the dimensions of the space. Visitors should feel like they can browse, actively search, study, rest and contemplate within each area. Some areas, with themes relating to the social, should have space to allow groups to gather, cultivate discussion and even allow presentation or performance. Digital technology and specialist equipment (e.g. microscopes, 3D printers, iPads) should be embedded into the thematic areas. This space should facilitate all visitors to become researchers, from the curious general visitor stumbling across it, to the well-informed amateur enthusiast actively seeking new information. Volunteers (including students of The University of Manchester) will support and facilitate visitors as they use the space. However, the design of the space combining functional aspects with familiar elements in order to encourage the visitor to explore, without overwhelming them and the inclusion of worked examples will provide additional hints and clues as to the ways in which the space may be used. Below are examples of how various groups may use The Study, using

266

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Falk’s framework for understanding the different motivations of museum visitors (2010, p. 156): • The explorer: A general visitor entering any thematic area in The Study should feel comfortable but curious. They may arrive on the third floor by chance and be guided by a volunteer to a particular section. Once there, they may browse books and objects, watch others use the space, rummage or investigate. This may lead to a longer visit or create a spark that results in a return visit. • The spiritual pilgrim: The Study may also function as a more reflective space; some visitors may sit and enjoy the wonder of the space without any active participation, providing an opportunity for rejuvenation. • The professional/hobbyist: The citizen scholar or hobbyist may have planned a longer visit to The Study in advance something that they do regularly. Examples include the Worker’s Education Association, naturalist groups and adult learners. They will expect to be able to use the resources and facilities to further their interest and may seek out a working area tucked away within the space. They may also wish to use The Study as a platform for sharing their passions, discoveries or interests. They may wish to meet fellow enthusiasts or leave their findings for the Museum and others to work on.

Where We Are Now Having explored the values, themes and research methods we are now at a stage where we can develop more subject-related content for The Study. For the next few months this is the focus of the Content Development team. One of the challenges we now face is fostering the spirit of inquiry without too much institutional direction. Fundamentally, we want to challenge the idea that visitors require us to prepare questions for them and provide the answers, and instead provide a beautiful and inspiring space for them to create their own questions and investigate their own interests based on the collection. As we discovered during fieldtrips to science centres and other ‘free choice learning’ environments, it is easy for the institutional voice to become didactic and instructional. The challenge for this development is to seek out mechanisms that support the variety of visitors from the spiritual pilgrim to the hobbyist, in using the space to pursue their own lines of inquiry. Traditional mechanisms, such as interpretative text and

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

267

facilitators/demonstrators, carry the risk of inadvertently imposing limitations on the visitor’s experience. Whilst not excluding the use of facilitators in The Study, we want to consider alternative approaches over the coming months, paying particular attention to how we might use the aesthetic and design to provide a supporting framework for participation. Using the framework set out by Shirk et al. (2012), we want to explore the different ways that the public may be involved or engage with research, focusing specifically on ‘contributory’, ‘collaborative’ and ‘co-created’ levels of participation. These levels of participation involve fostering different configurations of discourses and relationships between the public and researchers. For example, the ‘contributory’ participation level involves researchers requesting contributions from the public of data or samples we now want to explore how this may be set up in the space. This could happen by simply providing the space and opportunity for both parties to meet or in more creative ways, such as a notice board where researchers are able to pin up their requests for visitors to choose to respond to. ‘Co-created’ participation, in which the public and researcher share equal input into the research from the initial conception of ideas through to dissemination of results, may grow from longer interactions between researchers and the public. The next stages of development must consider how the design can physically bring people together to have these interactions, for example, through the arrangement of furniture and the creation of an environment that is conducive to these discussions. The need for such a space is apparent from Ucko’s (2004) work on the ‘Public Understanding of Research’ (PUR) in museums. According to Ucko, while museums can address research in terms of content, process and implications, these are rarely fulfilled together by one space. For example, exhibitions tend to address research content or implications but often neglect the research process, which is ill-suited to this format. Ucko identifies that opportunities for hands-on research and the creation of forums for discussion of research are largely neglected in the museum but by engaging the public in meaningful hands-on research activities, museums can build on their expertise in hands-on learning, thus making more effective use of inquiry-based learning techniques. By providing forums for discussing research implications they can build on the community respect their institutions hold and further civic engagement. Both of these roles fill important niches not generally occupied by other organisations and supplement the PUR programmes available through news, media, television documentaries and the Internet (Ucko, 2004, p. 223). .

268

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

CONCLUSIONS The Study is a work in progress, and this chapter has documented the development process to date. We have addressed how The Study will foster a spirit of inquiry, harnessing the values of authenticity, discovery and research process that form the basis of the Museum’s formal learning programme and translating them into a physical space. However, in doing so we have also revealed that the content development process is itself underpinned by inquiry. In taking the project forward, we are now focusing on the audience and how to nurture an inquiring disposition in a variety of visitors. The aim will be to find solutions in the design, content and aesthetic, which will foster relationships, stimulate feelings of curiosity and wonder and provide the tools for research to take place. Challenges will arise from the space itself that we have inherited. The Study must overcome the structural and architectural constraints of the space a space that was originally designed for an entirely different purpose (cf. Phillips, 2013). As is the nature of true inquiry-based learning, we accept that both success and failure will be part of this process. While there is an extent to which evaluation becomes part of the process of inquiry the ways in which visitors use the space will shape its future direction we are also keen to explore innovative methodologies that will allow us to measure the unexpected. The Study will need to adapt to external developments as well as respond to internal evaluation, and this must be considered in the flexibility of the design. This development effectively embodies the true essence of University Museums as test beds for new ways of working and innovative, if risky, methods. In our continued development of The Study, we adopt Bradburne’s philosophy towards research in that it is: ‘… fundamentally messy, fraught with debate and with failure, with loose ends, false starts, dead ends and unexpected discoveries’ and that any ‘… attempt on the part of the museum professional to build in certainty is to rob the visitor of a rich and profitable form of engagement and an experience that lies at the root of … creativity’ (1992, p. 91).

REFERENCES Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2009). Nature and culture: Objects, disciplines and the Manchester Museum. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Creating an ‘Emporium of Wonder’ at Manchester Museum

269

Arnold-Forster, K. (2006). Museums for the future: Recognising new relevance for university museums. Paper presented at the UMAC Conference 2006: New Roads for University Museums, Mexico City. Bradburne, J. (1992). Going public: Science museums, debate and democracy. In J. Bradburne & I. Janousek (Eds.), Planning science museums for the new Europe: Proceedings of a seminar held at the national technical museum, Prague, Czech Republic April 8 10,1992 (pp. 83 96). Prague: UNESCO/Na´rodnı´ Technicke´ Muzeum. Brown, P. (2011). Us and them: Who benefits from experimental exhibition making? Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(2), 129 148. Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning. (2010). About CEEBL. Retrieved from http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/about/. Accessed on July 10, 2014. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1985). Emergent motivation and the evolution of the self. In D. Kleiber & M. Maher (Eds.), Motivation of Adulthood (pp. 93 113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. DCMS & DfEE. (2000). The learning power of museums A vision for museum education. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Dierking, L. (2005). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming science and technology education. Histo´ria, Cieˆncias, Sau´de Manguinhos, 12(Suplemento), 145 160. Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “informal science education” ad hoc committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 108 111. Dorie, B. L., Dankenbring, C. A., Denick, D. L., Ferguson, D., Huff, J., & Phillips, C. (2012). FILE: A taxonomy of formal and informal learning environments. American Society for Engineering Education 2012 IL/IN Sectional Conference. Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265 280. Falk, J. H. (2010). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(2), 151 166. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). The contextual model of learning (2000). In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 139 143). Oxford: AltaMira Press. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Lifelong science learning for adults: The role of freechoice experiences. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1063 1079). The Netherlands: Springer. Galileo Education Network. (2004). What is inquiry? Retrieved from http://galileo.org/ teachers/designing-learning/articles/what-is-inquiry/. Accessed on March 12, 2014. Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. HEFCE. (2012). Summative evaluation of the CETL programme. Retrieved from http://www. hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2011/cetlsummevaln/. Accessed on October 26, 2014. Heimlich, J. E. (2013). The nature research centre at the North Carolina museum of natural sciences. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 131 138. Heina¨mies, K. (2006). The trump card of university museums: Academics from freshmen to emeriti. Paper presented at the UMAC 2006: New Roads for University Museums, Mexico City.

270

MENAKA MUNRO AND HANNAH-LEE CHALK

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museum and gallery education (2nd ed.). London: Leicester University Press. Hooper-Greenhill, E., Phillips, M., & Woodham, A. (2009). Museums, schools and geographies of cultural value. Cultural Trends, 18(2), 149 183. Kahn, P., & O’Rourke, K. (2004). Guide to curriculum design: Enquiry-based learning. Retrieved from http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/1009.pdf. Accessed on October 26, 2014. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laetsch, W. (2000). Process and product. Curator: The Museum Journal, 43(2), 83 87. MacDonald, S. (2003). Desperately seeking sustainability: University museums in meaningful relationships. ICOM study series, 11(2003), 25 27. Manchester Museum. (2012). Museum strategic plan: 2012 2015. Retrieved from http://www. museum.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/ourpractice/. Accessed on July 11, 2014. Meyer, M. (2011). Researchers on display: Moving the laboratory into the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(3), 261 272. Phillips, R. (2013). Space for curiosity. Progress in Human Geography, Published online before print: November 6, 1 20. doi:10.1177/0309132513506271 Resource. (2001). Renaissance in the regions: A new vision for England’s museums. London: Resource. Resource. (2003). Inspiring learning for all: A framework for museums, archives and libraries. Retrieved from http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk. Accessed on April 10, 2014. Russell Group. (2014). The Russell Group. Retrieved from http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk. Accessed on July 20, 2014. Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., & Jordan, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 29. doi:10.5751/ES-04705-170229 Stanbury, P. (2005). Information, ideas and international collegiality. In P. Tirrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd conference of the international committee for university museums and collections (pp. 1 4). Norman, OK: The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. The University of Manchester. (2012). Manchester 2020: The strategic plan for the University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx? DocID=11953. Accessed on July 19, 2014. Tirrell, P. (2003). Emerging strengths and resources of University Museums for meeting global challenges. ICOM Study Series, 11(2003), 7 9. Ucko, D. A. (2004). Production aspects of promoting public understanding of research. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmello, & B. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 211 234). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25, 247 252. Yerbury, D. (2003). Outreach: A structured and coordinated approach. ICOM Study Series, 11(2003), 23 24.

ENGAGING STUDENTS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF ENGAGING NON-SCIENCE MAJORS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Amie K. Patchen, Dennis J. DeBay, Michael Barnett and Eric Strauss ABSTRACT Recent publications, including Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009) and A New Biology for the 21st Century (National Research Council, 2009), highlight needed changes for undergraduate science education. These include a shift away from traditionally structured lab courses toward more authentic scientific inquiry experiences in undergraduate science laboratories. The aim of these reform initiatives is for students to develop not only conceptual understanding of the big ideas of science but also the skills required to conduct an investigation and an understanding of science as a human process of constructing scientific

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 271 289 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001014

271

272

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

knowledge (National Research Council, 2011). The work that we describe here examines the challenges and successes of engaging nonscience majors in a large introductory university-level science course in conducting scientific inquiry. To understand the course structure and the nature of the laboratory experiences, we describe two different lab experiences. In both cases, students engaged in guided inquiry and then were asked to engage in a more open-ended inquiry experience. Our findings suggest that students need significant scaffolding to make the transition from more guided inquiry to more open-ended inquiry.

INTRODUCTION Nearly all college students take at least one science course during their time in college (National Science Board, 2014). For some students, introductory science classes are gateways into entering a science field; however, for most students these introductory courses are the only science courses they will take in college (Tawfik, Trueman, & Lorz, 2014). This means that introductory level courses may provide the only opportunity to introduce some students to scientific inquiry at a deeper level than they experienced in high school. Yet, introductory science courses for non-science majors typically have large enrollments and are usually offered only as a lecture-based class. This historical approach relies on lectures and a corresponding textbook to convey knowledge to students that has been widely regarded as an ineffective pedagogical approach. Recent publications, including Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009) and A New Biology for the 21st Century (National Research Council, 2009), highlight needed changes for undergraduate science education, including a shift away from traditionally structured lab courses toward more authentic research experiences in undergraduate science laboratories. Many faculty and institutions are exploring the addition of research-like components to regular courses and labs (see DeHaan, 2005). The aim of these reform initiatives is to help students develop conceptual understanding of the big ideas of science, the skills required to conduct an investigation, and an understanding of science as a human process of constructing scientific knowledge (National Research Council, 2011). Most of these initiatives have been aimed at students who are already majoring in science, or upper-level science courses, and thus do not afford a similar experience

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

273

to nonmajors (Brownell, Kloser, Fukami, & Shavelson, 2012; Sadler, Burgin, McKinney, & Ponjuan, 2010). Yet, research has found that engagement in scientific inquiry endeavors can improve the persistence, motivation, and interest to pursue a science degree of students who are declared science majors, while also improving their understanding of the scientific inquiry process (Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado, & Chang, 2012; Laursen, Hunter, Seymour, Thiry, & Mellon, 2010; Marcus, Hughes, McElroy, & Wyatt, 2010; Ruiz-Primo, Briggs, Iverson, Talbot, & Sheppard, 2012; Sadler et al., 2010; Weaver, Russell, & Wink, 2008). This research is promising; however, non-science majors far outnumber science majors at nearly all universities in the United States and tend to have lower levels of science self-efficacy and lack an understanding of the scientific process (Laursen et al., 2010). This situation is of great concern because a lack of scientific and mathematical skills (or confidence in such skills) can inhibit economic productivity as more and more careers necessitate scientific thinking and require workers to draw upon and utilize scientific problem-solving skills (National Research Council, 2007, 2010). In this chapter, the research team (comprising of science and mathematics educators) describes how we have been striving to engage students in a large, introductory science course for nonmajors in a scientific, inquiry-based process in which the problems studied in the course do not necessarily have a clear-cut answer.

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING EXPERIENCES: THE PROMISE AND THE CHALLENGES A seminal report from the National Research Council, entitled How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), demonstrates a broad consensus among educators and psychologists from a variety of fields regarding the learning process. Central to their findings is that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process, with an emphasis on doing not simply receiving. Inquiry-based instructional approaches are not new, but using these approaches can reform and improve undergraduate science teaching. These approaches are well aligned with the skills and interest of faculty at research universities. Further, cognitive psychologists and learning scientists have repeatedly found that traditional lecture-based approaches tend to be ineffective in supporting learning and also can lead students to a misunderstanding of how science is conducted (Seiler & Gonslaves, 2010). For

274

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

example, scientists’ approach to doing science is far from a “follow-thesteps” approach and is filled with uncertainty, wrong turns, and incorrect results. In addition to this complexity, scientists’ knowledge of scientific concepts, understanding of scientific tools, and inquiry skills are intertwined. However, we have found that there are many challenges in implementing inquiry-based instruction in introductory college-level courses that are consistent with those described by Edelson, Gordin, and Pea (1999). The first challenge is how to motivate students to engage in inquiry-based learning. When students are not sufficiently motivated or are not motivated by legitimate interest, they either fail to participate in inquiry activities or they participate in them in a disengaged manner (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999). The second challenge is to design investigations or a sequence of investigations that build student confidence and inquiry skills. The third challenge is to build enough background knowledge so that students can generate research questions, develop a research plan, carry out an investigation, and interpret the findings. The fourth challenge, and in many ways the most difficult for introductory science laboratories, is providing time for extended investigations. Traditionally, most introductory laboratories are completed over the course of an hour or two with the expectation that all activities will be completed in that time frame. As a result, many students are not typically asked to manage extended and long-term complex processes as a part of introductory course experiences. The reason for this is multifaceted, including practical constraints that involve the availability of teaching assistants, availability of lab space and equipment, and time for students who are already taking several other courses. Yet, when these challenges are overcome or addressed, then inquiry experiences can provide valuable opportunities for students to improve their understanding of both science content and scientific practice and increase students’ capacity to engage in scientific research experiences.

SCIENCE FOR FUTURE LEGISLATORS: A COURSE HISTORY The course we have been revising over the past two years is entitled: “GE182: Science for Future Legislators.” It is an introductory, university core course that is taught in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department. This course was introduced to the university three years ago after one of the authors was on sabbatical in Washington, DC, where he

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

275

spent significant time working with congressional staff members on a variety of topics. Through this work, we realized that there were a significant number of college alumni working in congressional offices with the role of advising their respective senators and representatives in the fields of science or related discipline with little knowledge or understanding of scientific practice or scientific concepts. Thus, the Science for Future Legislators course was created and designed to be open to all majors with the goal of covering a wide range of topics ranging from climate change to airport security to sustainability of cities to cosmology. Across the various topics, the crosscutting concept of energy was used as a common thread to integrate the course into a sequence rather than just a set of topics. For example, energy is important in how metal detectors work, central to climate change and urban ecology, and of great importance when studying cosmology. GE182 is a three-credit course, which consists of 45 minutes to an hour of interactive lectures per week and a corresponding 90-minute to two-hour lab each week. The laboratories to date have been between one and five weeks in length. Through these labs we have learned that the students struggle with asking good and testable research questions and have little confidence or capacity for designing and carrying out a research investigation. To date the enrollment for the course has averaged 110 students per semester with a wide array of majors: a typical student distribution of 40% from the School of Management, 30% from the School of Education, 20% from political science and history, and the remaining 10% from a range of other disciplines including art, music, social science, literature, and psychology.

OVERALL LAB SEQUENCE The core of the course is the laboratory experiences. However, for space reasons we will focus on the last two laboratories that are described in Table 1. We have chosen these two laboratories in particular to serve as case studies because the urban planning lab is more of a guided inquiry learning experience that builds upon the skills the students gained during the previous laboratory experiences, whereas the hydroponics lab is as an open-ended inquiry experience. The hydroponics lab also serves as an excellent formative assessment in order to establish whether the course has helped students to develop those skills. Further, these two lab experiences showcase the successes and challenges of engaging students in a range of inquiry-based activities.

276

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

Table 1. Title (Number of Weeks)

Laboratory Sequence.

Goals/Scientific Practices

Brief Description

Roller coaster (1)

Collect dataUse evidence from data to evaluate design of coaster.

Climate change (2)

Use simulation technology to engage Students use the C-Roads simulation in group work and argumentation (http://www.climateinteractive. about scientific concepts around org/tools/c-roads/) and role-play climate change. being different nation states or nation blocks and use the data from the simulation to try to keep the planetary temperature from rising more than 2°C

Design a parachute (1)

Learn how to control for different Students learn that there is not a variables. In this variable-focused clear answer as “best” could mean lab students are expected to design most accurate or slowest. It is up the “best” parachute. to the students to determine what variables of their parachute (material, canopy size, etc.) improve the performance of their parachute. Up to this point the students are explicitly asked to evaluate their claims based upon the data (evidence) they have collected.

Daisyworld (1)

This lab introduces new scientific concepts that are important for the urban planning aspects of the course and introduces students to comparing and contrasting their results with their peers.

Urban planning Students learn how to balance the (4) ecological, economic, and social aspects of how to create a sustainable neighborhood.

Students build their ideal roller coaster out of 10 feet of clear tubing. The students are given basic constraints in that their roller coaster needs to have at least one hill and one loop, but the rest of the design is up to them. The measure of success is if their ball bearings make it through their roller coaster

In this lab students are asked to work independently, but are expected to compare their findings with their peers. http://ccl. northwestern.edu/ netlogo/models/ Daisyworld Students are expected to use a computer-modeling tool called CommunityViz (http://placeways. com/communityviz/) to redesign an area of the city. CommunityViz

277

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

Table 1. Title (Number of Weeks)

(Continued )

Goals/Scientific Practices

Brief Description is a GIS-based decision-support tool; CommunityViz “shows” you the implications of different plans and choices. CommunityViz supports scenario planning in which students can easily compare the ecological and economic impacts of different urban planning scenarios.

Hydroponics (5) The hydroponics lab is the culminating experience for the students in the course in which they are expected to design their own investigation from first principles and compare the outcomes of their experiment with their peers.

In the hydroponics lab students are given their own hydroponic system and are expected to design an experiment by manipulating a particular variable and comparing the results of their experiment with another group’s experiment. They are asked to evaluate if they can make a valid comparison and what claims they can draw as to the impact of particular variables (i.e., amount of light and amount of nutrients given to the plants) on plant growth.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS A naturalistic, interpretive, analytical approach to the data was undertaken through surveys coupled with classroom observations and review of student laboratory notebooks, one in which the “story” underlying the case of interest, that is, the work that students completed in the urban planning lab and the hydroponic labs, was analyzed (Stake, 2000). The “story” of reoccurring topics, content, or issues that evolved over time as a result of student participation in the two labs was traced throughout the data in order to describe the successes and challenges that students had while being engaged in the laboratory experiences. Specifically, a researcher read the laboratory reports of a selected sample of students. We randomly chose 10 students’ lab reports for review. After our research team identified key

278

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

themes, we then selected 10 students who received high and low grades on the labs in order to evaluate whether the emerging themes were valid and to provide additional data to validate the emergent themes. In the urban planning lab, we conducted a prepost test regarding the content under study. Specifically, we asked students to complete the pretest one week prior to the laboratory and then again three weeks following the conclusion of the laboratory. The three weeks allowed students time to “forget” the pretest but was not so distant that they could not remember what they learned in the urban planning labs. In the following, we present the results of the two laboratory experiences.

RESULTS Urban Planning Lab The urban planning laboratory followed a guided inquiry approach, in which students followed a step-by-step procedure to learn how to use the software but were expected to draw from course readings and the lecture on what constitutes good urban design. In this way, the urban planning lab was a mixed inquiry experience with aspects of direct inquiry, where students followed a “recipe” to learn the software, and open inquiry to generate their own designs, questions, and analyses. In doing this, students should have made their own urban planning decisions to create an urban plan that took into consideration the ecological, economic, and social aspects necessary for success. Throughout, the students had to interpret their data, document their interpretations in an appropriate format (e.g., a bar graph for this activity), and conclude their activity with a discussion with another group to compare different urban plans. Through this direct inquiry model, there were two major themes which indicated that the students were successfully creating urban plans through their inquiry lab: (1) students noticed the importance of ecological impacts of urban planning and (2) students’ ability to understand the nature of urban planning through making ecological, economic, and social trade-offs during their laboratory. Finding #1: Importance of Ecological Impacts of Urban Planning One of the questions on the pre and post survey asked students to rate the relative importance that should be placed on ecological development, economic development, or sociability when developing an urban area.

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

279

These three items (importance of ecological, sociability, economic development on designing a plan) used three-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (least important) to 3 (most important). There was a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest Likert scale questions. The students were also asked to describe the relative importance of ecological considerations, economic considerations, or sociability considerations when designing a site for an inner city neighborhood. The students (N = 110) shifted their thinking from a focus on economic development to emphasizing a plan that placed more emphasis on ecological considerations (Mpre = 1.77, Mpost = 2.23, t = 2.96, p < .05 and Cohen’s d = .58). The reasons for this shift varied but generally on the posttest, students correlated a healthy ecological design as a precursor to economic and social considerations. Therefore, if a design places ecological considerations as important, economic and sociability aspects of the design would be enhanced. This shift in thinking is illustrated in the following open-ended prepost responses: Student Time 1 (PRE): I know that I would not like to live somewhere I was not happy. I also know that I would not be able to be live, or be happy living, somewhere I couldn’t afford. Thus, my economic came second. Therefore, while I would like to live eco-friendly whenever possible, it just happens to come third to the other options.

After working through the lab, the student’s answer to the same question showed an increased understanding and importance of the ecological impact of urban planning: Student Time 2 (POST): I think plans should take the environment into consideration because it impacts several of the other factors. For example, as we have learned in class people thrive better when they are surrounded by greenery. Trees hasten hospital recoveries and generally contribute to more positive and livelier attitudes. Trees also contribute economically when shading buildings in the summer heat by reducing the amount of energy needed for cooling purposes. Therefore, by being ecological, the plan is consequently economic and social as well.

In the lab reports, the students were asked to compare the impacts of their design with the impacts of another group of students’ design. The following response also illustrates a shift in ecological thinking: Student: As we started our design we wanted to really build the site up and create jobs and opportunities for people [to] work as the area is economically depressed and we thought that approach would be most helpful for the site. Our initial design was heavily built around businesses and restaurants with an apartment complex to create some foot traffic. However, as we examined the graphs (see Fig. 1), it was clear to us that that the ecological impact was quite high, particularly around carbon dioxide emissions, increased traffic, and water use. We decided to scale back the business/economic focus

280

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

Annual CO Auto Emissions 96,000

Common Impacts Calculation

80,000

Ibs

64,000 48,000 35,317

32,000

27,534

27,534

Site B

Today

16,000 0 Site A

Fig. 1. A Student Result of Developing Two- Site Designs on a Vacant Parcel of Land in Boston, Massachusetts. The Students Evaluated the Amount of Additional Carbon Emissions that would be Emitted Given the Differnet Design Focii of Their Comparison Sites. and learned that the impact ecologically was large; yet, the impact on the overall number of jobs created in the area was minimally impacted. We decided to shift our design to thinking about how to balance ecological and economic development but with a stronger emphasis on the environment.

Finding #2: Understanding the Nature of the Urban Planning: Finding a Balance One of the survey questions involved students looking at three different urban plans (residential, commercial, and social) and using graphical interpretations of site costs, ecological impacts, and commercial traffic. The graphs the students interpreted were generated from CommunityViz using national data averages. In the pretest, 30.2% (n = 13) chose the residential as the best option, 51.2% (n = 22) chose the commercial, and 18.6% (n = 8) chose the entertainment. In the posttest, 21% (n = 9) chose the residential, 48.8% (n = 21) chose the commercial, and 30.2% (n = 13) chose the entertainment. It was noted through looking at the graphical interpretations of the given information, these changes in student’s decisions showed an awareness of both the total cost of the site and the importance of energy use

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

281

within a proposed plan. This is illustrated by the following student response: I changed my answer to the Commercial plan now because not only does it have the lowest site cost, it also has the lowest energy usage and a low number of commercial trips. I also underestimated the amount of things in the area, and the fact that there are so many University buildings near the area will bring people to the commercial area. The only drawback is the large number of impervious surfaces that add to air pollution and groundwater runoff.

Another student also noted that given the area, a good urban plan is needed to create a balance between the three variables I kept my choice of the commercial design because, the commercial design is better than residential. The residential design had more economic and ecological impacts across the board. As far as the entertainment design, I do not think that is practical for a densely populated, poor area of the city; it would be better to use in space in a more beneficial way i.e. a space that provides jobs and home/personal necessities instead of entertainment.

Engaging in the practice of urban design is valuable because one must evaluate and analyze data from a variety of perspectives. However, from a science learning perspective students were expected to be able to defend their reasoning for the design they chose and why it was the most ecological and economically viable option, using available data and evidence. To do that, the students utilized the power of CommunityViz to explore different scenarios and compare the impacts of their design with others. Specifically, the students were provided three designs that were created by a professional urban planner. One design focused on residential use, another more on commercial development, and the other design had a more social and green space emphasis. During the pretest, it was evident that many students had a misunderstanding of what trade-offs are (or that there were trade-offs) and how they relate to urban planning. In one pretest example a student explained: Student 1: The trade-offs would be that if it produces a lot of money then it probably isn’t helping the environment. Also the same goes to the opposite, where if it is helping the environment then it probably isn’t generating a lot of money. These two scenarios have a lot to do with an area with high residency and an area more commercial. The area with more residency will probably be better for the environment, and the [re] are more commercial will generate money.

However, during the posttest, there was an increased understanding of what trade-offs meant and how one would create a balance between the

282

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

various competing factors (i.e., ecological vs. economic) to design a sustainable urban area. In one example of the posttest, a student noted: Student 2: While the residential plan is much more expensive than the commercial plan, it increases the population by a much larger rate than the commercial plan. This shows how urban planners do have to decide between what characteristics are more important to a certain site.

The next example shows that students began to consider the benefits and drawbacks of a design plan. That is, a good design has to strike a balance between ecology, economic, and social considerations. However, students also began to realize that many designs could strike a balance, but such designs may or may not be the best design for a particular neighborhood: Student 3: In comparing our designs with the other group we think our design is better suited for the site because it creates a few more jobs with, what we think is a minimal ecological impact considering the importance of having jobs in the community where people live. Our design also has fewer places for people live and we accomplished this by having fewer town homes and more of a focus on having a larger apartment complex but increasing the amount of green space. This was done because when people live in an apartment complex they won’t necessarily have access to the outside as easily. This approach also allowed us to create a site that used less energy than our comparison group’s site which relied more heavily on townhouses.

This latter quote is significant in two ways. First, it shows students developing an understanding that the needs of a neighborhood must be balanced with economic, ecological, and social considerations. Perhaps more importantly, however, it also demonstrates that students used data generated by CommunityViz to justify their design decisions. This is significant because much of what students learn about how communities and cities are designed is abstract, particularly in large introductory courses, and they rarely have an opportunity to actually model and evaluate a design using data.

The Hydroponics Lab The hydroponics laboratory took a more open-ended inquiry approach than the urban planning laboratory. Students received a tower hydroponics system and were asked to explore how one aspect of the system affected plant growth. Additionally, students monitored the electrical usage of their hydroponics systems over the course of the experiment and calculated the economic and ecological (in terms of CO2 production) costs.

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

283

Finding #1: The Complicated and Interdisciplinary Nature of Food Production Students were asked to calculate the economic and ecological costs of growing food in their hydroponic systems. To do this, they measured the electricity used to maintain the system, and calculated the economic costs in dollars and ecological costs in terms of CO2 emitted in the time it took for the basil plants to become ready for harvest. They then determined the costs per plant and pound of basil they produced. Additionally, students compared their calculated costs to the costs of shipping produce to the northeast United States from traditional agriculture in California. Given the small scale of students’ hydroponics systems (one tower with only four plants), the calculated costs varied widely among groups, and needed to have large error bars associated with the values. However, students’ interpretation of these costs showed that they had an understanding of the complicated and multifaceted nature of the food production system in the United States. When asked whether their calculations were accurate estimates of the true costs of food production, students mentioned pieces of the larger system to justify their responses. Student 4 suggested that the calculations ignored many important aspects of the food system, and as such provided only a low baseline estimate of the true costs of both traditional and hydroponic food production: Student 4: The costs of growing food hydroponically and growing food at a distance are both underestimated. The calculations performed above serve as a very simple means of creating rough estimates that provide a base-line context of the costs associated with producing food. There are several more costs that are associated with growing food and produce that has been ignored. For example, the costs associated with the labor and the transient/migrant farm labor. From a hydroponics standpoint, additional costs can include maintenance of the plant systems and building/warehouse, costs related to shipping produce from the hydroponics facility to the local grocery stores, as well as other costs. Furthermore, the costs associated with growing food at a distance only represent the costs of shipping the produce/food. Thus, the $0.033/lb found above must be added to the costs of growing the food either hydroponically (at a distance) or on a traditional farm. In order to make the numbers more realistic, many more factors must be taken into consideration these calculations may become much more complex with the incorporation of these additional factors; however, this will provide a much clearer and realistic cost structure.

In this response, the student considered multiple aspects of the food production system and how those different aspects of the food system impact both production and consumption. This response was typical of the students in the sample. Although the prompt for this question did not

284

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

specifically ask students to think about the wider system, they consistently included this reference point in their responses. Beyond the economic system, students considered the ecological and social costs of food production. Students consistently suggested that, based on their calculations of CO2 emitted by their hydroponics systems, using hydroponics to grow food locally was ecologically better than shipping food across the United States: Student 5: I think growing hydroponically is ecologically better than growing food in California because of the high rate of emission that is caused from shipping it. The total amount of CO2 emitted to ship the average batch of lettuce one direction is 11,200 lbs. In the other part of the lab, I calculated that my system only produces 1790 lbs of CO2 per year. Granted, I am growing a much smaller amount of crops, but it seems that the multitude of trips across the country done by these trucks makes it extremely non ecological. However, if the US is able to get tractor-trailer trucks to get at least 8 miles per gallon by the end of 2014, this will certainly help.

One student integrated economic, ecologic, and social considerations when comparing the types of food production: Student 6: Economically, [using local hydroponic systems] makes sense for businesses because they can save a lot of money by cutting transportation costs. Ecologically, it decreases the amount of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. However, transportation of products is a big industry in the United States, and this could be a big hit to thousands of people and increase unemployment in the country.

As predicted, students’ evaluations of and perspectives on the different types of food production varied. A cohesive theme appearing in their responses is an appreciation of the complex nature of the food production system. By calculating energy, economic, and ecological costs of their hydroponic systems, and comparing these to costs and profits in traditional agriculture, students were able to see that there are not simple, clear, or consistent answers related to developing an efficient and ecologically friendly food system. Finding # 2: Putting the Pieces of Inquiry Together Was Challenging The course and lab contents built up over the semester. The hydroponics lab was an open-ended, unstructured lab where students put together all the pieces they had learned through the course. Students were instructed to pick a single variable, write a research question, and set up a hydroponics system in a way that would address their research question. They collected data on plant growth over four weeks. At the end of the lab, they were asked to compare their data to data with three other groups to answer their

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

285

research question. Beyond the general instructions, students were not directly told how to set up the hydroponic systems, how to pick appropriate comparison groups, or how to use the comparison data to answer their research questions. All of these concepts were covered explicitly in previous labs, and students were expected to draw on that previous knowledge and integrate the pieces without step-by-step instructions. However, this proved to be challenging for some students. Most of the groups successfully selected a research question based on altering one variable, in order to see the impact of that variable. Some students, such as Student 5, were able to integrate the pieces of inquiry to successfully collect, compare, and analyze data to address their research question: Student 5: With a fluorescent light, our sum of the total change in height of the 4 plants over the growing period was 26.25 inches. The following two groups had used LED light: group 2’s total change in height was 13.7 inches and group 11’s total change in height was 7.36 inches. As I mentioned before, group 9 had not recorded any data on the Google Doc, so I was unable to use their experiment in this report. Given that our group’s total change in height was nearly double what any of the other groups got, I think it is safe to assume that we had the best production. This means that the answer to our research question is that fluorescent light greatly improves the growth of basil in comparison to an LED light.

This student selected appropriate comparison groups, analyzed the data, presented evidence in terms of plant height, described his reasoning around the data, and connected the analysis to his research question. However, many of the students struggled with different aspects of experimental design, connecting to their research question, and interpreting the data they collected. One student clearly understood the purpose of comparing their results to data from other groups, and what groups would make appropriate comparisons: Student 7: We chose group 4, 5, and 13 to compare our findings with. We chose these group to compare our findings with because they all used the same crop as us, basil, and also changed the same variable, the nutrient solution. The similarity between all of these groups and our group’s research question is that we changed the amount of the nutrient solution (fertilizer) to see how the growth of the plant would be affected. The difference between our research questions is that each group decreased or increased the amount of nutrient solution by a different amount. For example, group 4’s research question was: How will doubling the quality of fertilizer effect the plant’s growth rate? Group 4 decided increase the nutrient solution from 1.2 to 2.4, while our group chose to increase it to 2.8. As well, group 5 chose to not increase or decrease the nutrient solution, leaving it at 1.2. Group 13 chose to decrease the nutrient solution from 1.2 to .8.

286

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

However, the student’s interpretation of the results was mixed: Student 7: I think that the group with the best production was group 8. I think this because they had the largest change in height, at 75.5 cm. Their research question was how will the conductivity affect the height of the plant. Their data show that the initial plant heights were as follows: 9.5 cm, 6 cm, 8 cm, 9 cm, with a total height of 32.5 cm. This total initial height changed dramatically from the final height of 108 cm. As well, each individual final height increased: 9.5 cm → 25 cm, 6 cm → 20 cm, 8 cm → 30 cm, 9 cm → 33 cm. On average, each plant grew 18.8 cm. This growth rate is exceptional, and the evenness of the growth rate across all four units also reflects the success of this group’s production.

In this response, the student made a claim about which group had the best production, provided evidence in terms of plant growth, and briefly described her reasoning around the evidence. However, despite the student’s clear description of why they compared their data to these specific groups, she does not describe how the data relates to the research question. This was a common problem in student responses few of the students in the sample effectively connected the data to their research question. In fact, many students did not address their research question at all in their analysis; instead, they focused solely on the plant growth data. Additionally, some students in the sample did not seem to understand how to use comparison groups in their experimental design: Student 8: We picked groups 10, 11 and 17 to compare our findings with because those three groups chose to “play” with three different variables and we wanted to see what impact each variable would have on the plant and how these changes would lead the plant to develop and grow properly.

In this case, the student did not understand that the research questions could only be answered by comparing data from groups that manipulated the same variable. The open-ended nature of this assignment was challenging for students. Despite the scaffolding of inquiry in the labs leading up to the hydroponics lab, students struggled to select and compare data without explicit instructions, and consistently did not connect the data to address their research questions.

CONCLUSIONS Our current experiment with the redesign of a large non-science major course has shown both promising results and challenges associated with

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

287

a shift toward more inquiry-based instruction. We have generally found that many students are comfortable with a more guided and directed instructional approach, particularly if such an approach provides them with the right answer. However, most problems that students will encounter throughout their lives often do not have a single right answer. The power of engaging students in scientific inquiry is more than just providing them with the skills and practices of science but also involves helping them to understand that uncertainty is a central aspect of the scientific process and life. In the evaluation of our implementation efforts, we found that students were able to engage in discussions and analyses regarding the complexity of the underlying science. The student also had an easier time engaging in discussion of the underlying concepts in the more directed inquiry lab experience. For example, in the urban planning lab students needed to make complex connections between the economic, social, and ecological aspects of city design yet realize that different urban designs necessarily yield different social, economic, and ecological impacts. However, the nature of the urban planning lab, being more of a direct inquiry lab, provided students the necessary structure to make comparisons and engage in comparative analyses across different urban plans. Therefore, it yielded a more sophisticated discussion of the underlying principles and practices than in the hydroponics lab. This result is in keeping with a small but growing area of research that suggests inquiry-based instruction, though valuable in learning skills, requires longer than a single semester-long course to develop the skills in sufficient manner to support students to conduct deeper inquiry. Questioning is one of the processing skills that is structurally embedded in the thinking operation of critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem solving according to Cuccio-Schirripa and Steiner (2000). Further, being able to design and develop one’s own testable question and design and carry out an investigation is a central aspect of the inquiry process. Yet, we found that students struggled to develop and investigate testable questions. In particular, in the hydroponics lab students could develop their own question but identifying a valid control or comparison group proved to be very difficult which limited their ability to make claims regarding their own experimental results. In the hydroponics lab the scaffolding that supported students in the complete scientific inquiry process had been removed with the assumption that students, after a semester of engaging in inquiry experiments, would be able to participate fully in the inquiry process. Yet, the students struggled. For non-science major introductory courses, our experiences suggest that scaffolding and guidance should be extended

288

AMIE K. PATCHEN ET AL.

throughout a semester-long course and be made explicit to the students. That is, in courses similar to the one described here, instructors should explicitly make connections between the skills and practices that are being used to complete a lab to the scientific inquiry process. Lastly, based upon our experience, we recommend that nonintroductory courses that focus on engaging students in doing open-ended research be structured for an entire year rather than be attempted in a single semester. This would provide time for students to conduct multiple longer term research investigations that are similar in nature to how science is conducted.

REFERENCES American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology. Washington, DC. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(2), 36 45. Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210 224. DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 253 269. Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391 450. Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53, 229 261. Laursen, S., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Mellon, G. (2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Marcus, J. M., Hughes, T. M., McElroy, D. M., & Wyatt, R. E. (2010). Engaging first-year undergraduates in hands-on research experiences: The upper green river barcode of life project. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 39 45. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm: Approaching category five. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry

289

National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators, 2014: A broad base of quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. Washington, DC. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Sheppard, L. A. (2012). Impact of undergraduate science coruse innovations on learning. Science, 331, 1269 1270. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235 256. Seiler, G., & Gonslaves, A. (2010). Student-powered science: Science education for and by African American students. Equity & Excellence, 43(1), 88 104. Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 235 254). London & New Delhi: Sage. Tawfik, A., Trueman, R. J., & Lorz, M. M. (2014). Engaging non-scientists in STEM through problem-based learning and service learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of ProblemBased Learning, 8(2). Weaver, G. C., Russell, C. B., & Wink, D. J. (2008). Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology, 4, 577 580.

MIGHTY NEGATRONS AND COLLECTIVE KNITTING: ACADEMIC EDUCATORS’ EXPERIENCES OF COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Alicia Prowse ABSTRACT This chapter explores the ways in which academic educators’ experience of collaborative inquiry-based learning (IBL) can illuminate student behaviours, particularly in relation to assessment and the affective domain. The facilitator of this IBL, in the setting of academic staff development in UK Higher Education, uses a reflective storytelling style to detail the learning of an annual cohort of staff at a university in the north west of the United Kingdom. Six separate academic staff cohorts enroled in a unit, as part of a Master of Arts in Academic Practice, to undertake this experiential, humanist way of learning, working with all the principles of collaborative inquiry. The chapter explores the ways in

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 291 316 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001015

291

292

ALICIA PROWSE

which the participants’ self-reported affective responses altered over the course of the unit, particularly in relation to the assessment. Participant reflections are integrated with pedagogic literature and extracts from the facilitator’s contemporaneous notes, assessor’s feedback and other material, detailing the ways in which the freedom of an IBL episode moves to anxiety associated with assessment, which can build as the assessment point nears. Reflections on group constitution, cohort characteristics and the role of the facilitator are considered in relation to the notion of ‘success’ of IBL episodes. This is interrogated particularly in relation to academic staff responses to the experience of the emotions of IBL, and how this may affect their own practice in designing teaching and learning experiences for students in Higher Education.

INTRODUCTION There has been increasing interest in how to organise, support and guide autonomous learning in United Kingdom higher education, particularly following the rise in student numbers across the sector (Molesworth, Nixon, & Scullion, 2009; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005; Yorke, 2003). In some cases, this has renewed interest in techniques of problem-based learning (PBL) and inquiry-based learning (IBL) as a way of developing greater student autonomy (e.g. Spronken-Smith, Bullard, Ray, Roberts, & Keiffer, 2008). There has been much debate and discussion over the definitions of PBL and IBL although this chapter does not seek to revisit this. In this chapter, the term IBL is used in the sense of an open inquiry where the participants collaborate to determine the problem/issue as well as their means of addressing it. The debate over the efficacy or value of such learning and teaching methods over more traditional methods (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Savery, 2006; Savery & Duffy, 1995) is however more pertinent. This debate continues to consider evidence and this chapter aims to add evidence by providing one academic staff developer’s experiences of IBL with academic staff on a taught postgraduate programme. I use a pragmatic definition of IBL in line with the view of (Bruder & Prescott, 2013) that all forms of learning from teachercentred to student-centred exist on a continuum. The course, collaborative inquiry (CI), was an accredited programme providing in-house academic staff development to six annually enroling

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

293

cohorts in a university in the North West of England. The episodes described aim to integrate the perceptions of myself (as facilitator) and participants: each audience reflecting on the value of this kind of learning. Staff development using IBL pedagogies for potential later use in staff classrooms would ideally incorporate experiential learning to model process and allow time for development of the thinking and processing of this learning. This chapter provides an analysis of the experiential learning through IBL for academic staff development. In particular, it considers the perceptions of that learning in relation to assessment and to the potential use of IBL in individuals’ own practice. By including myself as one of the learners in this enterprise, I also attempt to interrogate my experience as facilitator and although aware of the pitfalls in doing so (Savin-Baden, 2003) provide some caveats and pointers for ‘success’ based on our experiences. Many authors in writing about IBL, mention staff development in passing, as an element of a successful introduction of these pedagogies into undergraduate or postgraduate classrooms (e.g. Goh, 2012). Few studies document staff development through experiential learning of a collaborative IBL episode. In common with many academic developers, I regularly see feedback from staff on our courses (principally a Postgraduate certificate in Academic Practice and a Master of Arts (MA) in Academic Practice (MA AP)) that indicates how participants often put the highest value on the learning they do from each other, a well-documented phenomenon (Boud, 1999). They also comment on the experience of being in the shoes of their students as a learner with all the attendant power dynamics (e.g. Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000). In order to analyse the episodes, I have used material from the reflective essays written by participants; my contemporaneous reflections; the submissions made to the university’s annual monitoring reports including unit feedback from participants; assessors’ feedback to participants and academic literature. I acknowledge an inherent bias to the analysis insofar as some of these reflections were made directly for the purposes of assessment: reflective writing often being necessarily integral to the learning process in IBL. By this, I mean that reflections have mainly come from submitted coursework assessed for credit although some email correspondence is included. All participant materials were anonymised prior to analysis using a basic coding framework to surface affective responses. Express permission of the participants was obtained as well as their agreement with the content expressed here. This process enabled validation of my selection of quotes via re-presentation to participants. Identification of specific cohorts is deliberately unclear so that individuals are not identifiable. For me this is

294

ALICIA PROWSE

a retrospective phenomenological exploration of IBL evidenced by artefacts created at the time. The IBL Unit As an academic developer in a Centre for Learning and Teaching in a large metropolitan university, I found in early 2007 that I had responsibility for a new unit, CI, on a new MA in Academic Practice programme. I was new to the Centre and had much to learn about the business of academic staff development. In at the deep end, I began to work with the 17 participants and learn about the process of facilitating CI-based learning. This unit was initially designed as a 10-credit one, with a three-hour per week attendance over 10 weeks. For operational reasons, it later became a 20-credit unit. Over the six years, the cohort size has varied from 5 to 17 with more than 60 staff participating in total, most of these studying for credit. All participating staff members were informed at the outset that full engagement with the collaborative aspects was essential. Participants were drawn from discipline areas across the university and a variety of epistemological stances were therefore represented. I provided inputs on group dynamics and on the underpinning philosophy of CI, framing it as a group participatory action research strategy to investigate a real problem situation that the group articulates (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000).

Assessment in IBL In line with its origins in medical settings, some of the literature on assessment of IBL tends to focus on learning of factual information that can then be tested by standard assessment techniques such as multiple choice tests. Clearly in the setting described in this chapter, that kind of assessment is inappropriate and something more ‘authentic’ (Boud, 1985, 2007; Wiggins, 1990) was required. ‘Meaning making’ is one phase of the CI process, described by Bray (2000) as the phase during which communication of the outcomes of the inquiry are prepared for an external audience. Thus, our groups were framed by the need for an overall purpose and endpoint with an outcome (‘product’) which could synthesise all discussion, action and reflection. This ‘product’ could then be communicated to an audience outside of the group

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

295

as a part of the meaning-making process. The analysis and evaluation of the complete process was the subject of the assessed written reflection. As an episode of staff development, the intended learning was analysis of the process with a final evaluation of the applicability of this kind of learning to participants’ own discipline-based settings. This adds an extra layer of learning: that of observation of the process (including learning about facilitation). The ultimate goal of any academic staff development programme is for there to be eventual positive effect on the lecturer’s students. To this end, the assessment explicitly required participants to consider the potential for this in their reflections. Assessment was initially a group presentation (25%), a group project plan (25%) and individual reflection (50%). Over the six cohorts described, this changed so that it became simply a group ‘product’ (60%) (negotiated and developed with the group at the midpoint as to format, delivery mode, audience and assessment rubric) and an individual reflection (40%). The group product varied according to the nature of the topic under consideration and the group’s desire to communicate their outcome in a particular way. The product outcomes that transpired tended to be actively negotiated, creative, reflective and purposeful. These products included • • • • •

an outline course for staff development; a group discussion wiki; an online platform for sharing good teaching practice; a structured roundtable discussion and promotional pamphlet and a paper for peer review and possible publication.

The reflective essay required reference to relevant teaching and learning theory and reflection on the process of undertaking an episode of IBL. Participants were encouraged to consider the role of the facilitator, the dynamics of group interactions, their own thoughts and feelings about their role in the process and their consideration of this technique within their own context. One of the major tensions observed in each cohort was between generating and sustaining a genuine group process of IBL where excitement, passion and activity began to coalesce around a common goal, and the need for an assessment point as part of the requirement of masters level study. My interpretation of this observation is that assessment of an episode of IBL can compromise other outcomes via increased participant anxiety and the interplay of other affective dimensions. The following analysis explores this further including consideration of other factors that could influence affective responses: power dynamics and the role of the facilitator; group

296

ALICIA PROWSE

dynamics and cohort characteristics. The chapter concludes with reflections on the question of ‘success’. The Affective Domain The affective domain which concerns emotions and feelings in relation to values (Krathwohl & Masia, 1964) is clearly highlighted throughout participants’ reflective accounts where ‘education of the emotions’ (Hyland, 2014) appears to happen through the experience of collaboration in IBL episodes. In designing the unit, I had attempted to align the assessment with the kind of learning expected in a collaborative IBL episode (Murray & SavinBaden, 2000), and I made several changes over time to try to improve this. However, as the general picture of the emotional journey of the participants shows (Fig. 1), a typical pattern emerged: initial enthusiasm, a steep decline in relation to assessment anxiety and a return to more positive emotions, with final reported emotions towards the overall experience mostly, and often overwhelmingly, positive. Energised, supportive, cathartic, encouraging, excited relaxed, enjoyable

Emancipatory, surprising, freedom, inspired

Cautious, contrived, appreciation of group work, liberating

Miserable, confusing, frustrated Frustrated, disorientated, irritated, distracted, apprehensive, unsafe.

Start I N P U T S

Half-way dip What is CI? Some philosophical underpinning

Library session to update search skills/bibliographic software use

Negotiation around assessment and criteria

Assessment point Input on ‘meaning making’ phase

Fig. 1. Illustration of the Typical Emotions Experienced for the Cohorts of Participants on the Collaborative Inquiry. Note: The solid line represents affective tendencies of all groups with illustrative words taken from participants’ reflections. Boxes below represent some of the ‘planned’ inputs used (particularly in later cohorts).

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

297

In the Beginning In terms of process outcomes, staff often reported early positive feelings such as trust, support, freedom, solidarity, ‘limitless possibility’ and mutual appreciation: I was genuinely interested in others opinions and developed a real trust in this group and knew that the best person for each task would deliver successfully. The group’s initial discussions energized me and I enjoyed our discussions. It was supportive, cathartic and encouraging to share our experiences as academics. Having faith in other people lighten the work load and keeps the project motivated and enjoyable. My colleagues also felt the strength of the bond and there were several expressions of ‘love’ for the group.

In considering the possibilities for creative outputs, one group even began experimenting with wool as a metaphor for the knitting together of different aspects of their experience and found freedom in allowing themselves room to do this. The CI group epistemology created freedom and space to focus upon the question. Papert (1996) and Barrett (2005) mirror my personal experience of IBL as challenging with enjoyment, freedom, creativity to think, generate ideas and energy.

One participant also reflected on the element of enjoyment and used Papert’s (1996) concept of ‘hard fun’ to describe the positive, enjoyable and challenging team ethos: We made a concerted effort to maintain a light-hearted approach to the weekly meetings. We had an almost coffee shop environment bringing cakes each week and the discussion was conducted in a relaxed conversational manner with the deliberate spread of humour.

The Half-Way Dip However, all cohorts also reported at some stage, feelings of uncertainty, distrust, abandonment, unease and fear of failure. With each new cohort I observed that there was always a point where negative feelings emerged in relation to the assessment point: I was apprehensive ….I didn’t want to let the group down. I became increasingly irritated and distracted ….It took a concerted effort to manage my emotional responses to this developing situation, particularly as the presentation deadline came closer.

298

ALICIA PROWSE

My own feelings as a facilitator were also recorded, midway through the six years: I want to feel like a co-worker, but I am immediately compromised in that role so I have kept in the background. I really do want a good outcome for the group. I think the whole set up of a ten credit unit with masters level assessment sets out a baseline from which it is quite difficult [as facilitator] to proceed when attempting to follow the ‘rules’ of ceding control and authority withdrawing to allow freedom whilst not being seen to abdicate responsibility.

Anxiety always seemed focussed on the format and nature of the assessment. This anxiety always had at least some negative effects on the team functioning, with some cohorts experiencing this more strongly than others, perhaps depending on factors such as cohort characteristics. This is discussed more fully later. The low point in one cohort is articulated by this participant: The ‘norms’ of the group were for me, sanitised with any despair or anger kept in check although frustration was evident from each of us through non-verbal communication and was, at times more eloquent than the spoken word … whilst I could see negativity about the process creeping in I struggled to articulate my belief that we were ‘doing the right thing.

Another participant captures the point when high hopes involving creative outputs are lost: I felt that I had embraced the ‘story telling’ aspect of our discussions and wanted to use this but in our collective anxiety to perform for our ‘end product’ the power of our ‘stories’ appeared to diminish.

The feelings of a member of another cohort that the assessment cast a shadow over the more interesting and exciting aspects of the CI is embodied by this participant: I feel that our discussions flowed freely, encouraged risk-taking behaviour in terms of our nascent ideas and were more interesting than our written submission that was an arguably sterile distillation necessitated by the unit’s assignment criteria.

Another participant reflected on the way in which they found the assessment point frustrating: My experience of collaborative enquiry feels incomplete because the nature of this enquiry meant that we did not experience initiating an enquiry purely for the purpose of creating or enhancing knowledge (because this was carried out as an assessment).

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

299

The Assessment Point Nears I felt that when the process of IBL was working at its best it was energising for all concerned. True autonomy, learner confidence and partnership working with little regard for power relationships were all observed features of this. However, this rarely endured throughout the whole period. The time taken to find and agree on common ground, and develop an inquiry question that all could commit to, could be extensive. As a facilitator, I found myself increasingly exhorting participants to pin down their inquiry question. One participant expressed this: Working as a group was both rewarding and challenging. We shared our frustrations that our understanding of the task ahead, and what we were learning, seemed to shift in and out of focus …

As groups worked through the low point (Fig. 1), the outcome of this was usually much more positive: As the IBL progressed such [negative] comments diminished. Learner development and confidence [were] acquired from the process … at the end we feel very differently about what can be achieved …

Further the same participant noted: A significant issue noted by the group was the need to validate and ‘prove’ our inquiry for summative assessment but in this regard I felt that evidence of the process was not in effect the same as proof of validity.

As intended, the major element of learning was most often taken from the process rather than the product although some felt this was also compromised: I would have preferred more time attending to the process of meaning making within our collaborative enquiry. I felt that we focused too much on the final product at the expense of the process.

One cohort started well but faltered towards the midpoint, when other time claims meant low activity levels. My own emotions and anxieties for the group are also clear, one of my reflections says: I have lost the optimism I started with and wonder what can be achieved by this group. Had a long chat with [group member who was not planning to do the assessment] who talked a lot around the enjoyment of having the space to explore something without the imperative of assessment points.

300

ALICIA PROWSE

This informal interaction happened by chance unrelated to the activities of the group but it made me think that the freedom to investigate and explore was being sacrificed to the need for an assessment point. This consideration of anxiety in relation to assessment in IBL does beg the question, what are the alternatives? (1) Have none and provide all participants with 100% at the outset. Then pose the question, ‘Now, what shall we do with these ten weeks’? (2) Allow participants to run the assessment essentially a self-assessment process. (3) Use an external assessor although a second assessor was always involved as part of the assurance process, this was never used as a replacement for the facilitator/assessor role. Overall, the anxiety of participants around the assessment and my conflicted role as both facilitator and assessor were intertwined problems that remained unresolved. My assumption that participants would remain as ‘colleagues’ rather than becoming ‘students’ also needed challenging and I began to consider power dynamics more carefully. Power Dynamics and the Role of the Facilitator In the first session of the next cohort, I offered a drink as participants arrived, prepared them and brought them into to the class my intention was to set the scene for a clearly social process, on an equal footing, from the start. As discussions began there was enthusiasm and excitement about the process and the possibilities. As the group discussed their focus for an academic practice-related question, I noted things they said and typed these up as a record for reflection after the session. I also tried to encourage a more scholarly approach, as in both product and process this was necessary for masters level work, beyond some of the provided readings around the underpinning philosophy of CI. This cohort was exemplary in their openness to new ideas, their willingness to play and their ability to work with each other although their personalities were disparate and perhaps not complementary. Although they still exemplified the emotional rollercoaster that all cohorts experienced to some extent, their initial excitement included the breaking down of hierarchies, according to this participant: From the outset, although reading around the theoretical methodology of CI was promoted, the facilitation of the unit firmly lacked any sense of academic hierarchy and I think this laid back approach initially supported my personal development and sense of academic curiosity.

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

301

She also noted the way that initial interactions of the group were polite, agreeable and with a ‘tacit agreement that we would be supportive of each other’. With this group, I instigated use of artefacts as triggers to prompt discussion and suggest alternatives to paper-based communications. I suggested the group, me included, bring an artefact or picture to illustrate ‘What is an academic?’ These, according to participant reflections, provided stimulus for ‘passionate and invigorating’ discussion: Our initial task was to provide an artefact or image … The images we brought developed into powerful metaphors representing different dimensions of learning and response to the group enquiry … This was a powerful process, in which multiple perspectives and insights developed as we researched our enquiry question, and which underpinned the entire process of learning.

In later runs of the unit, I used part of a pre-unit MA course induction to introduce trigger questions which also helped to provide a sense of common ground between myself and participants. A participant noted: The group process began well with introductions quickly followed by a question what makes you get out of bed in the mornings? The response of each member … told the rest of the group not only about their background and current role but also about their personality, their work ethic and their passion and enthusiasm for their work. I was immediately struck by how much we had in common …

The facilitator role was also something that I encouraged participants to observe, consider and reflect upon: I did notice a difference when the unit leader was present. Savin-Baden and Howell Major (2004), when commenting on the processes involved in problem-based learning, note that dynamics play a crucial role in the operation of groups and I feel this was the case for our CI group.

Some participants made constructive suggestions. One participant described how an ‘induction’ to the process of CI could be provided which covers: the role of the facilitator (Edelson, 1999 in Kahn & O’Rourke, 2004) makes explicit some of the difficulties which groups can face and looks ahead to how any issues can be tackled by group members and facilitator.

She continued: Our facilitator helped when we were stuck. She provided direction when we were uncertain by re-focusing us on returning to the process of group discussion ….I preferred it when the facilitator took notes allowing me to focus on the discussion.

I certainly felt that I learned from both the participants and my observations. My feedback to a participant on their reflective piece reads:

302

ALICIA PROWSE

Your reflection on the role of the facilitator is insightful and thought provoking for me: I love how the learning … continues to reverberate back and forth. I think you are right that the facilitator could have more of a role in the meaning making stages, however, the concerns of the group and the looming focus on the point of assessment made it feel difficult to intervene too much … but perhaps this would have been helpful.

The role of the facilitator and the tensions created by the presence, absence, intervention or laissez faire embodied in this role are also summed up by this participant’s insight: Although Bray et al. (2000, p. 39) suggest that the instigator of the CI is the person with the most ‘problematic role’ due to the need to quickly ‘concede authority’ this aspect of CI caused a great deal of anxiety within the group with regular deference to the ‘leader’s’ opinions. With hindsight this role had overtones of parental responsibilities, with clear attempts to wean us away from our self- positioning as ‘the student’ who needs guidance and reassurance that we were ‘doing the right thing’. The refrain, ‘what does she want us to do’ was echoed on a regular basis, ironically mirroring our ongoing discussions surrounding our [inquiry] question around the role of the lecturer and student expectations.

One of my feedback comments on the above included: I would definitely agree with your analysis that there were some complex things that happened in this group and your exploration of the tensions between democracy, authority and the need for guidance are really fascinating particularly in the context of the mirroring of discussion you were having around the role of the tutor and student expectations.

In one early cohort, there were some expressions of frustration with an open, negotiated process: … I feel that the major problem with this work was not the group work but the lack of course direction … I feel we wasted a lot of time and effort and learnt much less that [sic] we could have done. Further, if an essay was not appropriate for submission this should have been made clear weeks earlier. This made the whole experience unenjoyable because I was so frustrated.

This group had problems with attendance due to work commitments and were keen to decide on an assessment mode at the outset. In trying to steer them towards a less constrained process, in their eyes, I had, myself become a constraining factor. Another participant from the same group reflected: I and others in my group had extremely negative reactions to the initial and ongoing process of collaborative enquiry … the general feeling of my group towards the whole process of collaborative enquiry [agreed with] the observation that students often suspected the [facilitator’s] reticence as a duplicitous choice of action which masked his or her true aim. My group struggled to determine what was expected as an end result of

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

303

what we saw as an extremely nebulous process and this led to many negative feelings towards collaborative enquiry as a learning method.

Affirmative feedback from the facilitator could also become part of a positive cycle: Our tutor was proud of our working style and this added to our sense of achievement.

Although these reflections focus on the facilitator, it should be noted that many participants tended to seek explanations for perceived failings within their own group’s processes, or to spread the blame evenly. While I was careful not to give opinion, it was regularly sought. A perception that I was withholding a secret answer that I was not willing to share, became less apparent in later cohorts.

Group Constitution and Dynamics As some authors have acknowledged, much of what occurs in facilitating IBL is related to the learners themselves (Clegg, 2008; Savin-Baden, 2003). Because of this focus on human interaction (learners and facilitators) the degree of applicability of learning from one setting to another is arguable. That said, this section considers group formation and behaviours as well as individual cohort differences in order to try to tease out some points of interest. Each cohort was encouraged to consider the group’s dynamics and constitution, either formally or informally, and was provided with readings around group dynamics (e.g. Belbin, 2012) and academic assertiveness (Moon, 2009). Although suggestions were made around ground rules and group contracts, participants tended to eschew these as perceived formalities. Optimum group size for IBL has been discussed elsewhere (Cleverly, 2003) but in this context I found that group sizes greater than eight became unwieldy if only in terms of speaking time per person, while fewer than four did not make a viable group, particularly if there were absences. However, specific constitution of the group is also important. For example, some of the most influential individuals (at least, from the facilitator perspective) were not studying for credit but simply wanted to see what they could learn. The degree of disruption caused to the group by having people either join late, or, more damagingly, leave or under-commit to the process, was clearly evident. In later cohorts all participants were informed prior to enrolment that full engagement with the collaborative aspects was essential.

304

ALICIA PROWSE

In my view we did not work very effectively together, for a variety of reasons, and our final product was not really a group work project at all but a series of individual efforts that were very tenuously connected.

Others realised a lack cohesion resulted from an insufficiently shared purpose, which had undermined the process: … the fundamentally flawed nature of the project we eventually managed to agree on did not inspire any enthusiasm in me at all ….I don’t think any of us had any real commitment to the enquiry question that we eventually came up with.

In the early cohorts, late arrivals, unexpected departures, erratic attendance and (especially) non-attendance at the final (assessment) session were all visibly detrimental to group identity, cohesion, focus and to eventual success. I addressed this by devising new trigger questions, developing different ways of encouraging participants to find common ground (e.g. asking open questions (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007)) and working with the course leader to set expectations from the outset that attendance at all sessions was expected and for the final session required. Part of my entry in the annual monitoring report for 2011 reads: Introducing the unit during the second half of the MA induction session worked well and there were fewer later arrivals/drop outs to disrupt group dynamics than has been the case in previous years.

The process of group formation was generally allowed to either flow from interests of the individuals or, in smaller cohorts, a group formed and had to find common ground via discussion. Some participants recognised that just being part of the group immediately began to provide value: Participatory epistemology is embedded in ontology and the premise of learning and existence where participation at whatever level is fundamental to our being (Heron, 1996). This was a significant moment of learning for me. That all participation on some level has a value.

More often, participants commented on the reluctance of the team to confront problems or on politeness prevailing even after initial stages, especially where some members were seen as not providing satisfactory levels of participation: The group had avoided the ‘courageous conversation’ (DOH, 2008) and I was certainly aware that I too avoided it.

Similarly, reflecting on the cultural norms affecting honesty within groups, there was a perception that elements of groupthink occurred:

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

305

The group actively engaged with each other, and feedback became an essential component. However, critical feedback was not a feature of this enquiry.

Others saw that individual characteristics and a commitment to collaboration were vitally important to both the process and the product: The group, our ideologies, principles and philosophies, political and social influences of education, work and culture, consciously or otherwise, exerted a powerful presence in the collaborative inquiry … My understanding of this environment in Vygotskian terms, was that through our collaboration we were able to support each other’s ‘Zone of proximal development’

Participants were encouraged to reflect on their group working skills and academic assertiveness and engage in metacognition and discussion around group and individual behaviours. Sometimes participants reflected on the positive ways in which others were capable of challenging established patterns of thought: … it was the ‘interplay between individual and group reflection conducted through dialogue’ (Bray et al., 2000) that produced the criticality that disrupted my own ‘knowledge’.

Another participant who missed the first session reflected on the importance s/he perceived of the process of group formation: I was amazed how much concern this caused me me, would I be ‘left out’ having missed a session?

would anyone want to work with

In any group working situation, the subtle interplay of personalities, experiences and a range of other factors inevitably collide in more or less positive ways. The perceptions of some of these characteristics are discussed below. Cohort Characteristics The six cohorts of staff participants undertaking this unit varied greatly in terms of their personalities, dispositions, experiences, disciplinary and educational background and readiness to engage with less traditional forms of learning. In addition, as facilitator, my experience of facilitating this kind of learning developed over the six years. In the most energised and positive groups there tended to be key individuals or particular combinations of individuals that seemed to aid focus on both group process and task.

306

ALICIA PROWSE

From a facilitator viewpoint, I observed the influence of these key individuals, and this influence often went unremarked by their co-workers; occasionally, participants felt these contributions to be noteworthy: It was the quietest member rather than the most vocal that we looked to for security.

Sometimes, key individuals brought a particular idea to the group here, an idea for group functioning, which was embraced and used to great effect: The clever idea of ‘coaching’ brought decorum to the group, giving time for individual points of view and a clear working structure.

The ‘team coach’ idea was rotated amongst the group on a weekly basis and helped build confidence and trust. In some cases, participants were able to see that personality, dispositions and prior experience could impact significantly on the inquiry and some participant reflections tried to articulate the reasons for an unhelpful group dynamic. In some cases, this included personal reactions to others: When the group first formed, I noted in my reflective log that two of the group were fairly quiet but seemed nice, one was a ‘mighty negatron’ bent on personal catharsis, and the other seemed like someone good to be in a group with because she seemed to have a lot of dynamism which I felt I would not necessarily bring to the group. By the end of the period ….I found that I still liked the first two, had got used to the negative one, but had started to find the dynamic one’s detachedness and total confidence bordering on arrogant.

Some participants thought that lack of group cohesion or personal commitment to a group resulted from the mix of personalities or from lack of direct contact: Due to the nature of some of the personalities within the group I know that I was reluctant to fully commit myself and sensed that others felt the same. … we simply didn’t have enough direct contact with each other over the course of the project to really get to know each other, … our lack of interaction meant that we never really engaged fully.

Others reflected how their (negative) responses might lead to positive gains. One of my feedback responses to a participant’s reflection reads: Interesting that unintended learning was quite powerful for you. Particularly the group dynamic that yielded unexpected benefits from the occasional ‘irritating’ or ‘unhelpful’ behaviour of other group members.

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

307

Although sometimes challenged by the mix of personalities, in general the social learning aspects of the CI were very much a positive outcome of the experience. Most groups, with strong enough social bonds and an agreed focus on common ground enjoyed the overall experience, their reflections noting gains which could count as ‘success’. The following section examines participant responses to the overall experience of IBL and the way in which they see this learning in terms of their own practice.

Measuring ‘Success’ of IBL in Staff Development The notion of success as used here is firmly set in the context of my own reflections on these particular episodes of IBL, with these students and with myself as both facilitator and one of the two assessors. Thus, as SavinBaden (2003) suggests, these reflections are simply offered on this basis, and it is not the case that any direct applicability of these factors to other contexts is necessarily claimed. One measure of success could be the degree to which participants felt that they would use this technique in their own teaching. Some felt that they would only use IBL with modification (usually around managing the process more tightly) but nearly all said they perceived value both for themselves as learners in having completed the process and potentially for their students (often with caveats). Taking the learning from what was sometimes an intense experience back into their own practice was something participants were specifically asked to reflect on. The philosophical basis of CI as defined by Bray (2000) includes a non-hierarchical and democratic approach underpinned by the firm idea of research with others, not on others, a premise participants tended to embrace. As participants reflected on this, they also began to think more about their own discipline-based practice: The theory practice divide has never seemed as wide as it does currently in the small, personal sphere of my teaching. The process encouraged a heightened awareness of the lived realities of my students who often fail to maintain reflective diaries and the implications for my expectations of student engagement.

These two participants represent the caution typically expressed by many in their response to the practice of IBL with undergraduate students:

308

ALICIA PROWSE

Whilst collaboration is both positive and pedagogically sound, I am committed to a cautious approach to the leaderless focus of collaborative inquiry with new inexperienced students … On a personal level this study has inspired me to implement collaborative enquiry methods (slowly) into my undergraduate units.

Another participant took learning specifically relating to the affective domain and considered how this could affect her own practice: I can now see, for example, that the emotional connection of feeling part of a group is a valuable part of the experience and this can benefit my students by enabling them to see other members of their group dealing with similar insecurity and anxiety to their own and coming to realise that they are capable of studying successfully and completing their degree.

Personally, I have learned a great deal about facilitation and this has had lasting effects on how I teach. It has also made me consider the notion of ‘success’ in relation to learning and the way my measures of this notion are helpful or not. A recurring conclusion for participants was that caution should be exercised in using IBL with the participants’ own students. This outcome could also be considered a ‘success’ factor. IBL seems to require a degree of experience in both the facilitator and the participants for the most positive outcomes to occur. However, in two notable cases, participants have specifically related their learning to an introduction of IBL with their own students. I was so inspired by the CI unit that I have decided to do my independent study unit on the use/impact of [IBL] in [subject area].

The same participant emailed a year later: I just wanted to thank you for your encouragement when I phoned you a while ago thinking about presenting about Collaborative Inquiry at a conference. Myself and a colleague were successful in applying to chair an interactive workshop using the principles of CI for a conference and I am also presenting a paper on my thoughts following from the unit about the expectations of the academic to fill up students with knowledge and the restrictions of the current curriculum format, from my perspective …

This participant took a year to ‘gestate’ the idea of using CI with students or with others and then to act on this. As some have suggested (Webb, 2013), this is an indication of the period of time needed to allow for the kinds of ‘profound change’ in thinking required to use IBL a day of staff development cannot simply be given and curriculum change

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

309

immediately occur. It takes time to find a suitable context and explore a change of mind-set: As I read more about collaborative enquiry I responded emotionally to the concept of being allowed to be a ‘guide on the side’, (Salmon, 2004 in Edwards & McKinnell, 2007), not a lecturer.

A member of staff from one of the earlier cohorts responded to my email: re: permissions to use materials in this chapter with this: I use what I gained … in most if not all of my own teaching, learning and use it specifically in my [Level 6] enquiry-based assessment.

One participant in reflecting on the use of IBL in his own setting suggested that this required a considerable shift in mind-set: My own experience suggests that with wise facilitation, a good reading list and a group of students who are motivated to learn such a shift in mind-set is not impossible.

Reflections on the shift of mind-set needed tended to be hopeful and perhaps slightly surprised: It could be argued that this [method of teaching and learning] could leave elements of the curriculum to chance and at risk of not being covered. However, my reflective diary revealed that questions I had noted were answered unintentionally as the enquiry progressed. The process of enquiry was thus able to deliver more than a linear understanding of the enquiry question. I learnt a great deal more than I anticipated in the CI.

Another participant reflected on the way in which contribution to the outcomes of the IBL could increase personal learning even when this goes largely unacknowledged by anyone other than the participant. This was almost intangible to the observer of the presentation. I found it invaluable in terms of understanding personal paradigms in participatory action research, team work, group process and, as an example of the emancipatory power of critical thinking within a collaborative enquiry, it demonstrates that it all counts, just not necessarily when you think it should!

In several cases, reflection on process-based issues often provided the key learning: Despite the poor quality of the group’s final product, I do think I learned an enormous amount from the experience of carrying out the project, both ‘knowledge-based and process-based’ (Savery, 2006). I learnt a great deal about the ‘emergent concept’ of IBL, I learnt more about myself from observing how I behaved as a member of a group and by reflecting on the whole experience in the light of the theoretical knowledge [than] I gained from the course-related reading.

310

ALICIA PROWSE

Finally, one participant explains how initial scepticism over what could be achieved, became recognition of value derived from the experience: I was also unsure how the group members, from quite disparate professional backgrounds could possibly complete [sic] a challenging piece of work. That uncertainty has been firmly quashed by the recognition that we did create some semblance of order from an initially vague premise and work together effectively.

In the most ‘successful’ IBL cohorts a large part of the ‘success’ was the positive group feeling and ethos. Table 1 shows the various positive elements the facilitator observed in the more successful groups, together with facilitator guidance that appeared to encourage these elements and an attempt to develop ‘success’ factors from these. Other authors (e.g. Anstey et al., 2014) have also begun to develop these kinds of guidance. In relation to the final points in Table 1, with one cohort, when I had found myself largely superfluous to group discussions and had left the group to continue their weekly session, the group approached me after the session and asked to interview me. They thought I might have some useful knowledge of institutional resources to contribute the group saw me at this stage, as a resource to draw on, not as a member of the group or as the ‘assessor’. Our six-year journey took me as facilitator from IBL inge´nue to someone with first-hand experience of learning, feelings, attitudes and reflections on the process. While I made errors, (too hands-on, too hands-off) I think we learned how to make this work and all cohorts experienced some elements of a functioning learning environment. I also believe that sometimes it worked in spite of anything I tried rather because if it. As a facilitator, I tried improving triggers, using open questioning at key points, encouraging challenge and devils advocacy, supporting scholarly approaches, suggesting ideas around group management scaffolding and then withdrawing but I never shook off the feeling that my very presence was a destabilising one that always related to the assessment point. Assessment of the IBL episode, however disruptive in some respects, did provide clear structure, and even the most autonomous group found the assessment point was vital in seeing work completed to a timescale, and in the production of creative and potentially impactful outputs. The assessment point helped inspire creative ‘hard fun’ (Papert & Negroponte, 1996) and a sense of working towards a useful outcome. Many other factors were in place for this including: a complementary mix of personalities/group working roles; a member with previous knowledge of IBL; and members who shared their ability with online collaborative tools. As various authors

311

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

Table 1. ‘Success’ Measures Derived from Elements Seen in Successful IBL Cohorts of Experiential Learning for Academic Staff Development. Elements Seen in ‘Successful’ Cohorts

Facilitator’s Role in Relation to Elements

At least some members of the group read the suggested academic literature about the process of IBL.

Use an induction phase to set the learning environment. Explain the role of the facilitator; how this might change (scaffolding and withdrawing will occur); and how to call on this role; Ask open questions to engage participants with relevant literature. Use and develop trigger activities that help establish common ground. Encourage positive thinking. Meet the group in an informal way prior to the start of the inquiry to set/reset expectation including dialogue re: meta-learning make time to discuss the way the affective domain can influence perceptions of the process, the learning and each other. Take every opportunity to place value on participants’ own stories of practice. These stories from practice are likely to be part of the data collected but are rarely thought (by participants themselves) to be of high value, or indeed, as data. Allow participants’ own solutions to problems of communication to surface.

A reasonably quick decision was made regarding a question to pursue.

The group valued the diversity within it.

Every participant found a way to bring something that interested both themselves and the group.

Communication between group members was aided by some kind of online communication tool. The group contained at least one key influencer.

Direct specific attention (both explicitly and implicitly) to a democratised and nonhierarchical process and

‘Success’ Measures • Meta-learning has taken place as evidenced by reflections.

• Cycles of positive and purposeful action are established.

• All team members feel they have genuinely participated.

• Group product is valued (by members of the group; by others).

• Degree of participation via communication media (all members communicate more or less equally). • Degree of equalising of the power dynamics (how far do participants feel their voice has been heard?).

312

ALICIA PROWSE

Table 1. Elements Seen in ‘Successful’ Cohorts

(Continued )

Facilitator’s Role in Relation to Elements equalise power dynamics. Remind the group that all individuals will have valuable contributions to make but may do this in different ways. Establish from the outset, by example, that food, drink and social interaction are part of the learning.

‘Success’ Measures

• Amount of social learning (cake consumed/coffee drunk/informal support provided, friendships made). • Degree of group bonding Group members felt that Use and develop triggers to (e.g. longevity of group there was a real connection create a social, purposeful contact after the episode is to each other. and protected space, finished). including communicating • Reverberation of reflections around ethical behaviours, over time (is learning still confidentiality and trust and going on?). providing relevant input (e.g. on group dynamics or ways of working) ‘just-intime’. The group found a structure Suggest some structures or • Group discord indicators absent (i.e. complaints or protocol that worked for protocols (e.g. rotating them and that they stuck leadership, coaching) that about group process). with. might be useful but allow the group to select one that works for them. Participants trained/taught Be alert to opportunities to • Amount of co-teaching each other. offer help but wait to be occurring asked. • Degree of autonomy Disrupt expectations The group took account of sometimes, for example, the diversity of the facilitator takes lower status individuals and were not roles note-taker, teachallenged by or deferential maker. Be aware of the to the facilitator. different roles you inhabit that may be of use to the group. The group becomes an Accept that the facilitator may • Degree of autonomy autonomous unit that does feel blamed, marginalised, not need facilitation. excluded, irrelevant at times. Social learning was a prominent feature.

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

313

have acknowledged, introducing elements of self or peer assessment (e.g. Boud & Falchikov, 2007; Savin-Baden, 2003) can help to address anxiety by ceding control of the assessment to the participants and this would be my priority in future IBL teaching. Over 2000 articles have cited Kirschner, Sweller and Clark’s article that claims constructivist pedagogies of discovery with minimal guidance are a failure (Kirschner et al., 2006). The kind of IBL that is represented in this chapter is not discovery learning but is definitely more towards this end of the continuum, compared with, say, traditional forms of PBL. There have been a number of responses to Kirschner’s central claim including arguments around teacher stance (either fundamentally student-centred or fundamentally teacher-centred) and how this drives choice of methods of learning and teaching. More recently, some authors have suggested this dichotomous orientation could be framed instead in terms of seeing learning as acquisition versus learning as participation (Wegner & Nu¨ckles, 2013). Perhaps one use of IBL as experiential staff development is to allow personal exploration of this dichotomy, with ‘success’ being the degree to which the experience helps staff to rationalise or explain their approach. In considering different facilitation styles for IBL, Landeen, Jewiss, Vajoczki, and Vine (2013) conclude that more experienced facilitators and their students had higher ‘tolerance of ambiguity’ (p. 277) which helped them to work through some of the more chaotic stages of the process. This certainly is my experience of the process, and this tolerance of ambiguity links strongly to the ideas of learning for an unknown future (Barnett, 2012) for which IBL is surely apt.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My heartfelt thanks to Anne Clayson, Garry Diack, Alison Domakin, Nicky Hirst, Ruth McQuater, Chris Meadows, Lindsey Munro, Barbara Shepherd, Lisa Trencher, Mandy Isles, Emily Webb, Kathryn Whitehead and all other participants on the Collaborative Inquiry unit 2007 2013.

REFERENCES Anstey, L. M., Michels, A., Szymus, J., Law, W., Edwin Ho, M. H., Qu, F., … Chow, N. (2014). Reflections as near-peer facilitators of an inquiry project for undergraduate

314

ALICIA PROWSE

anatomy: Successes and challenges from a term of trial-and-error. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(1), 64 70. Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 65 77. Belbin, R. M. M. (2012). Management teams. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. Boud, D. (1985). Problem-based learning in perspective.Problem-based learning in education for the professions, 13. Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning. The International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), 3 10. Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 14 25). Abingdon: Routledge. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Abingdon: Routledge. Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection and meaning making. London: Sage. Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM, 45(6), 811 822. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0542-2 Clegg, S. (2008). Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 329 345. Cleverly, D. (2003). Implementing inquiry-based learning in nursing. London: Routledge. Goh, K. L. (2012). A staff education and development programme to support PBL. In G. O’Grady, E. H. J. Yew, K. P. L. Goh, & H. G. Schmidt (Eds.), One-day, one-problem (pp. 259 281). Singapore: Springer. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & 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. doi:10.1080/00461520701 263368 Hyland, T. (2014). Mindfulness-based interventions and the affective domain of education. Educational Studies, 40(3), 277 291. doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.889596 Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: McKay. 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 inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75 86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Landeen, J., Jewiss, T., Vajoczki, S., & Vine, M. (2013). Exploring consistency within a problem-based learning context: Perceptions of students and faculty. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(4), 277 282. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2013.03.013 Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277 287. Moon, J. (2009). Making groups work: Improving group work through the principles of academic assertiveness in higher education and professional development. The Higher Education Academy, Subject Centre for Education, ESCalate. Retrieved from http:// escalate.ac.uk/downloads/5413.pdf

Mighty Negatrons and Collective Knitting

315

Murray, I., & Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Staff development in problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 107 126. doi:10.1080/135625100114993 Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 267 281. doi:10.1080/02680930500108585 Papert, S., & Negroponte, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 3. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31 38. Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International. Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J. O., Ray, W., Roberts, C., & Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on Mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 71 86. Webb, G. (2013). Understanding staff development. New York: Routledge. Wegner, E., & Nu¨ckles, M. (2013). Knowledge acquisition or participation in communities of practice? Academics’ metaphors of teaching and learning at the university. Studies in Higher Education, 1 20. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.842213 Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477 501. doi:10.1023/ A:1023967026413

REFERENCES AS USED IN STUDENTS REFLECTIVE ACCOUNTS: (REPRODUCED VERBATIM FROM PARTICIPANTS’ REFLECTIVE ACCOUNTS) Barrett, T., MacLabhrainn, I., & Fallon, H. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of enquiry and problembased learning. Galway: CELT. DOH. (2008). Unspecified document from the Department of Health. Douglas, T. (2000). Basic groupwork [electronic resource]. London; New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://netlibrary.com/nlreader/nlreader.dll?bookid=61009/ Edwards, E., & McKinnell, S. (2007). Moving from dependence to independence: The application of e-learning in higher education. In A. Campbell & L. Norton (Eds.), Learning, teaching and assessing in higher education: Developing reflective practice. Exeter: Learning Matters. Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage. Kahn, P., & O’Rourke, K. (2004). Guide to curriculum design: Enquiry-based learning. University of Manchester [online]. Retrieved from http://www.campus.manchester.ac. uk/ceebl/resources/guides/kahn_2004.pdf Kahn, P., & O’Rourke, K. (2005). Understanding enquiry-based learning. In T. Barrett, I. MacLabhrainn, & H. Fallon (Eds.), The handbook of enquiry & problem based learning (pp. 1 12). Galway: CELT.

316

ALICIA PROWSE

Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations: Technology, knowledge and learning. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95 123. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9 20. Retrieved from http:// docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/ Savin-Baden, M., & Howell Major, C. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. Berkshire: Open University Press.

HOW TO SCALE INQUIRY-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING THROUGH PROGRESSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Tracy Miller ABSTRACT Inquiry-based teaching and learning is a valued learning theory, which can transform a prescriptive, teacher-led classroom into a dynamic, active learning environment. Some factors to consider about inquirybased activities are that they are designed to incorporate many strategies and techniques to develop students’ affective, social, and metacognition domains. Inquiry-based teaching and learning is most successful when students have some level of self-regulation and when faculty members provide meaningful guidance. Unfortunately, students are infrequently taught how to be self-regulated learners. In addition, faculty members are uncomfortable and under-incentivized to try innovative teaching pedagogies. To illustrate the dichotomy of both the delivery of inquiry-based teaching and a student-centered approach, a DNA double helix is used as a

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 317 337 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001016

317

318

TRACY MILLER

metaphor and visual model. Importance is placed on designing learning experiences that can be adapted based on context, available technology, meaningful assessment, and positive student outcomes. Educational trends in higher education are explored and implications are drawn based on the research and programs being implemented at many universities and colleges. This chapter provides insight into how higher education institutions can scale inquiry-based teaching and learning through their strategic initiatives to promote faculty excellence. Evaluation frameworks and logic model planning strategies are included in this chapter.

INTRODUCTION Constructivist learning theory’s primary tenant is that the meaning is constructed by the learner. Learning does not happen in a vacuum; it happens in life. Our lives are made up of a unique set of experiences and environments, what we call, “context.” Inquiry-based teaching and learning can be uncomfortable for higher education faculty because of an intentional shift in control. Context is just one factor we have no control over. Another factor is the unknown. Today’s college faculty member is charged with preparing our students for a global workforce. The faculty member is preparing students for the future when experts cannot even begin to predict what job skills will be relevant in five years. In a global workforce, where the vital careers of the very near future have not even been conceived yet, it is critically important that higher education prepares their students to question and learn, rather than consume and regurgitate. This is the basis for inquiry-based teaching and learning. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Education Directorate, Andreas Schleicher, contends that changing the way students are taught will be critical to student career success post college, “Today, because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise” (Schleicher, 2010, para 8). This is an incredibly complicated issue and it is something faculty members face every day. Faculty members know they need to teach their students to become lifelong learners. However, they themselves are often ill equipped to employ innovative instructional strategies. As will be discussed later in the chapter, learners are not often skilled at self-monitoring and other metacognitive

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

319

awareness tactics. Therefore, even if faculty members are properly executing inquiry-based activities, the students do not have the foundational skills to fully benefit from them. This chapter borrows a term from biology and applies a DNA double helix as a visual model (Fig. 1) to outline how faculty can develop a wide range of educational experiences, including curriculum that is increasingly more inquiry-based and student-centered. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is encoded with biological, genetic instructions. Whereas, the chapter’s helix represents a method for encoding educational instructions in the development of inquiry-based, student-centered learning experiences. To begin, in the section “Developing Faculty’s Competency,” two parallel strands are described. Strand one (Fig. 1) is the instructional delivery methods faculty may choose to incorporate into a learning experience to address course and learning objectives. Strand two (Fig. 1) is the pedagogical approach or focus of the lesson, as it relates to teacher versus student centeredness. Further into the chapter, the section “Designing Curriculum” introduces a strategy for combining assessment, context, technology, and outcomes, or what will be called base pairs, into learning experiences. Still borrowing from the double helix, the strategy suggests that faculty members connect delivery and approach by mixing and matching the four base pairs in a way appropriate to each more progressively complex level along the two strands. In the later part of the chapter, creating an institutional initiative is recommended to increase inquiry-based education from a few, motivated individuals to large-scale adoption across the university. Specific processes are outlined and a sample logic model and an evaluation framework are included.

Fig. 1.

Double Helix Representing Encoded Educational Instructions for Developing Learning Experiences. Source: Miller (2014a).

320

TRACY MILLER

DEVELOPING FACULTY’S COMPETENCY Inquiry-based teaching and learning begins with the understanding that, when done well, students are taught to develop questions and discover the answers within their own context, and then apply the skill to new contexts. Creating a healthy questioning climate goes beyond the “no question is a dumb question” mantra. Constructing the right question is a vital skill for today’s 21st century learner. In the book, Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Questions (Rothstein & Santana, 2011), the authors have constructed a technique called the question formulation technique (QFT). The technique is designed to foster three “distinct thinking abilities (p. 27),” divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and metacognition. The book suggests that the thinking abilities are important individually but when these abilities are used in tandem, they are extremely powerful. In the simplest of terms, students will learn how to think broadly, synthesize information to find solutions, and think about their own learning. What students may recognize as traditional education would suggest a delivery method of direct or prescriptive instruction and a teacher-centered approach. Fig. 2 illustrates the strands of the double helix uncoiled. The first strand is delivery and the left side point represents direct instruction, while the far right is open inquiry and research. The points on the second strand progressively transition from a teacher-centered “sage on the stage” approach to constructivist student-centered “guide on the side” approach to teaching.

Fig. 2.

Continuums of Inquiry-Based Education and Student Centeredness.

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

321

Delivery Strand: Direct Instruction to Open Research Most educators teach the way they were taught, (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 1999, p. 64) and that may very well be through direct instruction. But what does it look like? There is usually a textbook and lesson plans; perhaps even a written curriculum that is shared in your college’s department. It is prescriptive. The professor lectures, gives specific information, and students (hopefully) follow along. Although direct instruction can be criticized as not innovative, it is not a bad delivery method. According to Director Schleicher (2010): The dilemma for educators is that routine cognitive skills, the skills that are easiest to teach and easiest to test, are also skills easiest to digitize, automate or outsource. There is no question that state-of-the-art skills in particular disciplines will always remain important. However, educational success is no longer about reproducing content knowledge, but about extrapolating from what we know and applying that knowledge to novel situations.

There will always be important skills and content knowledge that is best delivered by simply providing the information to students. However, as Schleicher notes, meaningful learning happens when students successfully apply what they have learned in a new context. Guided inquiry is usually defined as an experience in which students are guided through an investigation. Often times, guided inquiry employs methodologies and procedures. Science labs are a good example of a traditional, guided inquiry activity. In this sort of environment, a guided inquiry has the students hypothesize and follow a procedure to discover the results. However, if they do not follow the procedure as instructed they may fail to discover the intended results. Another example of a guided inquiry activity is a WebQuest, which can be used in a variety of subjects. In the chapter “Consuming and Constructing Knowledge through WebQuests,” creator Dodge (as cited in Hartman, 2012, p. 256) defines a WebQuest as “a learning activity that involves inquiry-oriented activities … by interacting with resources on the Internet.” A WebQuest activity could be used to deliver a variety of content and enhance many 21st century skills. This sort of guided inquiry develops process skills and information literacy. Every year the New Media Consortium and the EDUCASE Learning Initiative publish The NMC Horizon Report for Higher Education (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014). The report

322

TRACY MILLER

recognizes the work of many universities, programs, and partners while identifying many of the obstacles to overcome. A “Relative Lack of Rewards for Teaching” (p. 24) is of major concern. Faculty members are often hired as researchers, and while they want to try new, innovative teaching practices, they are not provided with resources or incentives to do so. Among the suggestions, to solve this challenge, is a top-down institutional initiative to fully support innovative teaching. Later in the chapter, designing and measuring an institutional initiative will be discussed. One of the most difficult challenges with inquiry-based teaching and learning is control. Higher education faculty can no longer limit content to curricula that they are entirely comfortable with. Students may need guidance and structure if they are beginning to ask their own questions, but the teachers do not need to provide all the answers. In Banta et al.’s letter to the editor in CBE-Life Science Education 2012 volume (Banta et al., 2012), the authors describe a portal that gives undergraduate biology faculty access to peer-reviewed, inquiry-based, integrated instructional units (I3Us) in the field of genomics. The inquiry units were developed because of the understanding that undergraduate biology faculty members are not commonly experts in genomics and bioinformatics, but students may be interested in them because of the growth in those fields (Banta et al., 2012, p. 206). In this case, the faculty member provides students with an inquiry-based experience, which has structure but not as much guidance. Structured inquiry starts to depart the realm of the known and moves to the unknown. The student, faculty, or even the field at large may not previously know derived results, conclusions, solutions, or answers. Problem-based learning or project-based learning (PBL) is a variation of inquiry-based learning. It begins with a problem or project that is relevant to the learner. Both PBLs lend themselves well to societal issues and begin with a problem the student has identified and therefore is motivated to solve. The inquiry question tends to be an adaptation of “how” or “can I solve this problem?” Both project-based learning and problem-based learning are centered on real world, authentic learning, pedagogical strategies and they are extremely sensitive to context. Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver, authors of Authentic Learning Environments (2014), describe their alternative instructional model as “means to facilitate the acquisition of robust knowledge that transfer more readily to real-world practice” (p. 402). Authentic learning environments (ALE) lend themselves well to inquirybased teaching and learning. Another attribute of PBLs and ALEs is working on teams or collaboration. The Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis’ Peer-Led Team Learning is a project highlighted in the

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

323

Horizon Report (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 11). The University is researching web-based environments, which will allow students to collaborate in small groups to solve problems and work in teams on authentic issues important to them. In the book Inquiry: The Key to Exemplary Science (Yager, 2009) chapter 4 highlights the Student Inquiry and Research program at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy in which students create their own year-long inquiry projects. This is a high level of inquiry or what is called open inquiry or research. As the students begin to develop the “habits of mind” (Scheppler, Styer, Dosch, Traina, & Kolar, 2009, p. 42), they are required to take a Methods of Scientific Inquiry course. One of the most difficult steps in this process is step one developing the focusing question. Students are paired up with a mentor or advisor whom tends to be a subject expert associated with the inquiry. In general, the process and direction are driven by the student and aided by the advisor. Although Inquiry: The Key to Exemplary Science centers on science, the idea is to utilize scientific thinking in any inquiry project. Open inquiry is at the far right of strand one of the double helix and requires a high level of student-directed learning. Inquiry advisors or mentors may be tempted to “take control,” but it is more important to help the students to reflect on their learning and be able mentor them to analyze and synthesize their findings.

Approach Strand: Teacher-Centered to Student-Centered Student-centered learning environments can be extremely valuable to the student learning process. However, they can be uncomfortable to both educator and student alike. A student-centered environment requires skills that are not mainstream in today’s classrooms, such as, self-direction, metacognition, and reflection. This is why it is important to take a progressive approach to development and competency. In chapter 7 of Theoretical Foundation of Learning Environments (Azevedo, Behnagh, Duffy, Harley, & Trevors, 2012), it summarizes Student-Centered Learning Environments (SCLEs) as difficult, “… because it requires students to monitor and regulate several aspects of their learning” (p. 171). The authors also write, “Unfortunately, the typical learner does not engage in these complex adaptive cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning with SCLEs” (p. 173). Faculty members should develop skills in inquiry-based teaching and learning in conjunction with fostering a student-centered environment. In

324

TRACY MILLER

1986, Zimmerman (as cited in Azevedo et al., 2012, p. 173) created a definition of self-regulated learners as, “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their learning.” Azevedo et al. contend that for SCLEs to be successful, self-regulated learners must be present. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom created a taxonomy naming each level of the cognitive domain of learning. The most basic is knowledge or simply remembering. In 2001, Krathwohl created a revised taxonomy in which the knowledge domain from the classic Bloom’s taxonomy contains a second dimension that addresses the more affective domain, for example, changes in attitude. The revised taxonomy introduces the possibility of developing selfdirected learning skills through the learning activities faculty members provide to their students. For instance, a reflective online journal would touch on the intersection between metacognition and self-evaluation in student learning. Therefore, we can begin to explore the possibilities of learning objectives focused more in the affective domain. For example, students will be able to critically think about their own learning. Krathwohl considers the methods of inquiry to be an example of procedural knowledge (p. 214). Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy helps with planning activities that will address metacognition and fostering self-directed learners and faculty members can begin to realize success in an inquiry-based environment. Motivation is another important factor of a student-centered classroom. Intrinsic motivation is very powerful, as Pintrich, professor at University of Michigan, states in his article Theory into Practice (2002). Students who monitor their strengths and use adjustment strategies can increase their motivation to complete a task. Pintrich suggests that students’ interest in a topic may enhance motivation (Pintrich, p. 220). According to Pintrich, Krathwohl writes, “Metacognitive knowledge … enables students to perform better and learn more” (p. 222), and those metacognitive knowledge strategies can be transferred to new situations. Student-centered classrooms allow students to hone these skills and apply the strategies in new ways inside and outside of the classroom.

DESIGNING CURRICULUM ACTO Model

Assessment, Context, Technology, Outcomes

The two strands of delivering inquiry-based instruction and the approach to providing a student-centered environment may never connect without a

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

325

bridge between the two continuums. DNA contains sequences of base pairs that make up genetic coding, such as eye color. Instead of the exclusive pairing of guanine-cytosine (GC) and adenine-thymine (AT) let’s discuss the non-exclusive ACTO base pairs: assessment, context, technology, and outcome (Fig. 3). When designing a lesson plan or curricula, the first step is always to consider the learning objectives. In other words, think about what you want the students to know, understand, and demonstrate, etc., as a result of your instruction. The next step is the “how.” How will faculty measure students’ level of achievement, competency, or even mastery of a learning objective? Assessment. In 2010, Jody ClarkeMidura and Chris Dede wrote an article for the Journal on Research in Technology in Education titled, “Assessment, Technology, and Change” (Clarke-Midura & Dede, 2010). Clarke-Midura and Dede feel that “itembased, paper-and-pencil tests” inadequately measure student outcomes related to inquiry and other 21st century skills. Higher education faculty members certainly cannot accurately measure critical thinking with an item-based test. Tests can remain in their assessment toolbox, but the assessment needs to be paired with something else. For instance, critical thinking can be measured through a rubric designed to assess student discourse in a discussion forum. A wellconstructed discussion forum can address the notion of social constructivism in which students construct knowledge or understanding through interaction with each other. Students should be encouraged to question and challenge each other to incite a higher form of learning, such as critical thinking.

Fig. 3.

Double Helix with Assessment, Context, Technology, and Outcome Base Pairs. Source: Miller (2014b).

326

TRACY MILLER

The authors of Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Questions, Rothstein and Santana (2011) reveal that “Students who are aware of themselves as learners and who can name and monitor their own learning strategies can more easily apply knowledge obtained in one context to another” (p. 30). “The problem persists into higher education; research shows that many college students lack basic metacognitive skills and habits to assess their own understanding of content and materials” (Rothstein & Santana, 2011), which have been linked to the development of critical thinking skills. Context can seem impossible to incorporate into designing a lesson or unit, as it is so individualized. The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy’s Problem-Based Learning Network (IMSA Problem-Based Learning Network, n.d.) conducts a design institute to help teachers consider their students’ context. It is a brainstorming activity in which they identify potential local issues and resources that match with learning objectives. Considering context is what makes the content real world and authentic. Local concerns and resources become relevant to the learners as they hone their inquiry skills in preparation for implementing them into new and broader contexts. For example, students who work with a community organization have their real-world questions answered in meaningful ways and they may then seek out more answers on a state or national stage. Identifying resources has another advantage. Additional content experts or influential people can become assessment providers or presentation judges. Because of advances in technology, time and geography dos not have to be severely limiting when gathering these resources. Means wrote in her (2010) article “Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning” that between 2005 and 2007 there was an increase in teachers using technology, but they were using it for productivity and not for learning activities. According to the 2014 Horizon Report there remains a lack of digital fluency among faculty (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 22). The Horizon Report suggests this is a “solvable challenge” (p. 22). Learning a new technology can be a positive learning experience for faculty members. An emerging technology, highlighted in the Horizons Report, is online adaptive learning tools. Adaptive learning software measures students’ understanding in real time and adapts content delivery. Higher Education institutions are using adaptive learning technologies for guided instruction. Content providers Pearson and Knewton collaborated on a project for first-year college students (Johnson et al., 2014). According

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

327

to the Horizons Report, “In the summer of 2013, Pearson partnered with Knewton to offer more than 400,000 college students enrolled in first-year science and business courses access to adaptive, personalized tutoring services that detect patterns of students’ successes and failures with the course materials and provide guidance accordingly” (p. 7). This collaboration provided data that was never possible before now. If technology can facilitate content delivery and formative assessments, faculty can use that evidence or data to go beyond basic understanding and be more successful in inquiry-based learning objectives. Inquiry-based teaching can easily be an evidence-based pedagogy and this chapter will use the word outcomes to describe what assessment results hope to measure. Here is a simplified explanation of the difference between an educational objective and learning outcome: “Objectives are intended results or consequences of instruction, curricula, programs, or activities. Outcomes are achieved results or consequences of what was learned; that is, evidence that learning took place” (University of Connecticut, Assessment, n.d.). Learning outcomes are results of student learning, but it has always been a challenge to measure higher order thinking outcomes. As adaptive learning software, online analytics, and other data collecting mechanisms become common place, more data will be collected for analysis. “The emerging science of learning analytics … is providing the statistical and data mining tools to recognize challenges early, improve student outcomes, and personalize the learning experience” (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 12) according to the writers of the Horizons Report and they believe the wide spread adoption of learning analytics is less than one year away. Outcomes should not be measurements of only knowledge gained. Even short-term outcomes can show changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes. However, measuring higher order skills, attitudes, and competencies is complex. If inquiry-based learning is more than just knowledge gained, how do we measure learning in new and innovative ways? The San Francisco-based self-proclaimed “twenty-first-century learning laboratory,” The Exploratorium (www.exploratorium.edu) has an ongoing partnership with Stanford University. John Edmark and Sebastian Martin (Stanford University and Exploratorium respectively) introduce students to inquiry-based teaching through interactivity and rapid prototyping in a ten-week course. The course is called “Design for Exploration.” This partnership has been going on since 2009. The outcomes touch on the affective and social learning domains as students reflect, refine, and evaluate their projects.

328

TRACY MILLER

The Importance of Design Designing inquiry-based lesson plans is critically important. For example, in the book Make Just One Change (Rothstein & Santana, 2011), the authors describe an educator who is developing a lesson about pollution. The Question Formulation is a technique developed by the Right Question Institute in which a focus, known as the QFocus, is used to keep students on track with the learning objective but allows them to design their own inquiry through developing questions relevant to them. In this example, the educator created a stimulating QFocus which was “Pollution harms Boston residents (p. 45)” in order to generate questions from students. The authors note that while the educator is giving question-generating control to the students, they are not giving up management of the class by stating, “Ostberg’s experience demonstrates how the teacher, as designer of the QFocus, is not relinquishing authority or responsibility to set learning objectives ….Even as she is temporarily giving the power of asking questions to the students” (Rothstein & Santana, 2011, p. 44). In this QFocus learning activity, in order to develop skills in metacognition and evaluation, perhaps pair an assessment with technology (A-T) by assigning a reflective journal. No two learning experience sequences have to be alike and can be scaffolded. If the students (or faculty) are not ready for the ambiguous nature of a metacognitive exercise, faculty may be more comfortable flexing their inquiry muscles with a guided inquiry activity. To use Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy again, if the learning objective is students will be able to apply (cognitive process dimension) lab-testing procedures (procedural-knowledge dimension) correctly then the learning activity could be pond water sampling and it would be considered a guided inquiry. In order to design an activity that scaffolds from the guided inquiry to a structured activity, splice in more student-centered based pairs. Table 1 is an example of a guided inquiry learning experience. The learning environment becomes more of a structured, self-directed, inquiry by providing student with a wiki that they primary control. Furthermore, Table 2 includes affective domain outcomes, such as attitudinal changes. In this example, the final reflections might include regrets about personal habits that cause water pollution. The learning experiences are shifting slightly from left to right on the double helix strands by intentionally sequencing the based pairs from a guided to structured inquiry. As faculty member’s efficacy with these design techniques develops, the students will develop in their self-direction, and the shift to inquiry-based teaching and learning can begin.

329

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

Table 1. Example of Coding Base Pairs for Guided Inquiry. Sequence

Based Pairs (ACTO) Pond water sampling Identify proper equipment (technology) needed to conduct water sampling at a local pond (context) Activity assessment on sampling procedures (short-term outcome) and preparation for analysis (intermediate-term outcome)

1 T-C 2 A-O

Table 2. Sequence 1 C-O

2 T-A 3 A-O

Example of Coding Base Pairs for Structured Inquiry. Based Pairs (ACTO)

Pond health Establish context by understanding your students. QFocus (Rothstein & Santana, 2011) should be relevant to local environmental concerns. Outcomes include changes in behavior and attitude, as well as an understanding of societal implications. Use group wiki technology to gather need and need to know information as a formative assessment Final Reflection Journal assessment on personal changes in attitude (short-term outcome) and predicted changes in behavior (intermediate-term outcome)

SHIFTING INSTITUTIONAL GENETICS

EVOLUTION

Lessons from Medicine and Engineering There are some disciplines in higher education that have always lent themselves to inquiry-based education. In order to shift institutional inquirybased genetics, we should look to the college departments that are already very familiar with these teaching and learning approaches. The field of engineering is all about problem-solving, innovating, and designing. An article, written in the January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education, entitled Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learning (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer, 2005) suggests that successful, upperclassmen, engineering students need to be taught design thinking. Design thinking can be taught through problem-based and project-based learning experiences. The authors characterize approaches to design thinking or the skills needed as “tolerate ambiquity that shows up in viewing design as inquiry or as an iterative loop of divergent-convergent thinking” (p. 104). The lesson that the educators focused on with design

330

TRACY MILLER

thinking was that engineering students are taught to think convergently, in which they will arrive at known truth value answers. However, they must also be taught how to think divergently in which they will create questions with multiple possible answers, and answers that may not have “truth value” (p. 105). Design thinking begins to emerge as students create this loop of finding truth value answers, which lead to new questions with ambiguous answers, which lead to progress in the design process. Another lesson learned was the realization that engineering students do not only benefit from speaking “mathematically,” they also benefit from speaking “visually.” Dym et al. mention that the students benefited from “sketching” out their thoughts during the design process. Students use sketching for revising and refinement of ideas, as well as communication. Currently many universities are creating maker spaces or creativity studios to allow students to hone these skills in dedicated environments. In the Horizon Report, Johnson et al. (2014) recognizes the uptake of 3D printers being used for rapid prototyping, typically used in engineering, “As 3D printing gains traction in higher education, universities are beginning to create dedicated spaces to nurture creativity and stimulate intellectual inquiry” (p. 41). The findings of the Banta et al. biology portal project of inquiry-based, integrated instructional units (I3Us) mentioned earlier in the chapter recognized the benefits of learning lessons from others. The I3Us module developers believe according to Banta et al. (2012): … our grassroots approach leveraged a wealth of existing expertise by providing opportunities for individual faculty members to develop, implement, modify, evaluate and share undergraduate teaching modules that stem from their own research and/or teaching interest. (p. 207)

In Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learning (Dym et al., 2005), researchers discovered an important element to successful engineering programs, that is, diverse teams. Teams with members with diverse perspectives create an intersection of ideas rather than just a total summation, or what the authors call “collective efficacy” (p. 107). Teamwork is a 21st century skill that employers are critically seeking. Engineering firms and industries often work with universities to provide students with “realworld” problems to develop engineering’s future work force. In 2006, the journal Educational Psychologist published an article entitled “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

331

Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). The authors express strong opposition to constructivist teaching and learning as it relates to guidance. Specifically, the research found evidence to support a decrease in knowledge acquisition and, at best, no difference in student outcomes between traditional medical programs and problem-based medical programs. The authors stated that schools were attempting to “rescue medical students from lectures and memory-based recall exams” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 82). The only exception was clinical practice evaluations which showed more favorable results. The lessons to learn from this research reinforce the arguments for • adjusting the level of inquiry delivery to be appropriate to the learning objective; • a student-centered approach does not mean reduced faculty guidance; and • faculty members are not intuitively prepared to teach inquiry effectively. Kirschner et al. contend that some educators, who shifted to a constructivist teaching pedagogy, changed their perspective and began to assume that knowledge can only be learned from experience. What was lacking in these attempts, of over 60 colleges mentioned in the study, was instruction on “facts, laws, principles, and theories” (p. 84) critical to the understanding. Clearly this prerequisite knowledge cannot be ignored. In 2010, researchers studied medical schools, which were enhancing student offerings with programs of in-depth inquiry. The programs are called scholarship concentrations and they are designed to address the challenges of modern medical education with the goal of providing students with opportunities to improve analytic, creative, and critical thinking skills (Green et al., 2010). Green et al’s. journal article, Encouraging Scholarship: Medical School Programs to Promote Student Inquiry Beyond the Traditional Medical Curriculum, highlights four universities: Brown University, University of South Florida, University of California San Francisco, and Stanford University. Each university stressed the importance of “longitudinal inquiry both for increasing in-depth learning and for fostering the essential mentoring relationships on which students and faculty can build over time” (Green et al., 2010, p. 417). They credit the strength of the programs to the faculty’s ability to mentor the students effectively. This suggests a higher level of faculty guidance than what was suggested in the findings of the Kirschner et al. research.

332

TRACY MILLER

Adaptability

Survival of the Fittest

One of the greatest, modern indicators of a university’s success is the number of students who find meaningful employment post college. The higher education institution’s very survival, in terms of recruitment, funding, and retention, depend on strategies that will increase the likelihood that students will be prepared for the 21st century, global workforce. Higher education will need to adapt on multiple levels to survive, and innovative teaching can be one of the adaptations. To scale inquiry-based teaching and learning, universities will need to create an institutional initiative. The Horizon Report suggests that “teaching innovations can most effectively be scaled when they leverage a participatory, collaborative method with top-down policy development” (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 29) and leadership should be distributed among all of the stakeholders. Inquiry-based teaching and learning should be part of the institution’s genetic makeup and conflicting policy can only hinder the scalability of innovation. When a higher learning institution creates an initiative to promote faculty excellence in inquiry-based education, it might start with a question such as, “How can we scale inquiry-based teaching and learning at our institution?” Measuring the success of any initiative usually requires, or should require, an evaluation framework complete with a logic model. Table 3 is a simplified version of a logic model for an inquiry-based teaching and learning initiative. Higher education institutions need think about how to provide evidence of success at a basic level, with strategic plans to scale or modify, based on the results or metrics. Metrics are used to ascertain whether an initiative is effective or reliable. Susan Hines, Saint Mary University, provided a seminar (Hines, 2014) at the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative’s Spring Focus Session on How to Evaluate Faculty Development. The impact of a faculty development initiative can be measured on many levels, according to Hines. Participation and satisfaction are just the first two levels. Hines continues with four additional levels to measure the program’s impact: participant learning, impact on teaching, impact on student learning outcomes, and impact on the institution. Today’s competitive climate demands these levels of impact in the field of faculty development. Similar to inquiry-based learning, program outcomes can be achieved through activities with ACTO in mind. The inquiry question is “How can we scale inquiry-based teaching and learning at our institution?” One question often leads to more (divergent thinking). “Did participants change

333

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

Table 3.

Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning Initiative

Inputs • Budget or funding • Staffing • Advisory committee • Facilities/online space • Technology

Activities • Develop training • Create educational materials • Validate assessment tools • Facilitate inquiry-based design workshops

Logic Model. Outputs

• Increased number of competent inquiry-based faculty • Increased number of student-centered learning environments

Outcomes Short Term Faculty have opportunities to improve inquiry-based teaching and learning skills

Intermediate Term Faculty demonstrate competency in inquirybased pedagogy

Long Term College departments have inquiry-based competent faculty prepared to transform courses

Impact Initiative Goals Sustainable inquiry-based teaching and learning system-wide

Indicators of Success

Performance Measurements

• 25% of faculty will be competent in inquirybased pedagogy • 30% of college departments will elevate inquiry-based teaching and learning as a priority

• Attendance • Course evaluations • Demonstrated proficiency • Policy statements

their practices, did the student learning outcomes change as a result of the program, and was there an institutional change as a result of the program?” (2014). The evaluation framework can guide the activities and programs developed for an institutional initiative and include evaluation tools, data collection methods, and analyses in order to share results, refine the program, and increase scale (see Table 4). In the same EDUCAUSE session, Lawrence Ragan presented The Quality Transformation Faculty Development Assessment Framework (Ragan & McQuiggan, 2014). This session suggests a slightly varied model with a series of steps instead of levels. Ragan and Hines have similar strategies for evaluation. There is value in both. Ragan’s is more directly tied to what he calls “Techniques and Metrics” associated with six steps: participation, faculty input and satisfaction, attitude and knowledge, instructor performance, student performance, and return on investment.

334

TRACY MILLER

Table 4. Measurement/Tool

Evaluation/Assessment Framework. Data Collection

Metrics

Participation impact Who is participating in inquiry-based teaching faculty development? • Registration • Demographics • No. of participants • Attendance • Past attendance • No. of repeat attendees • Motivation to attend • % of completion • Records Satisfaction impact Did participants find value in inquiry-based teaching faculty development? • Surveys • General pros/cons • % of positive results • Focus groups • Choose most beneficial • Rank leading topics • Interviews • Quality of activities • Future opportunities Participant learning Did participants learn about inquiry-based teaching and learning? • Pre-post assessments • Acquired skills • No. of competencies • Follow up • Changed attitudes acquired • Activities • Learning analytics • % attitudinal change • Reflection • % of time on resources Teaching impact Did participants change their practices as a result of the program? • Teaching behaviors • No. of inquiry-based • Presentations • Student surveys • Faculty preparedness behaviors • Classroom observations • Application of techniques • No. of converted • Inquiry-based activity plans lessons Student outcomes impact Did the participants’ student learning outcomes change? • Student attrition and retention • % of retention • Student performance (pre-post) • Students are self-regulated • % of higher grades learners • Progress toward degree • No. of employable skills • Reported changes in student • Passing grades learning • Learning analytics Institutional outcomes impact Was there an institutional increase in inquiry-based teaching and learning? • Course evaluations • Inquiry-based courses • No. of proficient faculty • Department assessments • Return on investment • No. of certified • Course transformations • Accreditation data programs • Budgeting/funding • Reliable funding sources • Human resource reports

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

335

Table 4 is a modification of Ragan and Hines’ frameworks blended together. Evaluating an initiative is larger than evaluating a training event or even a program, because it is a collection of many activities and programs. Therefore, higher education institutions do not have to only reward and recognize skills acquired in-house. If relevant competencies are detailed and evidence-based assessments are in place, faculty can be recognized for learning that happens outside of the institution. Either way the initiative goals are met. While it is important to measure the effectiveness of an activity or program, the success of an initiative should be less linear because faculty members will often have different experiences and skills with student-centered, inquiry-based education, which that may require different programming. Although the title of this chapter is How to Scale Inquirybased Teaching and Learning through Progressive Faculty Development, a successful initiative will usually require multiple stakeholders in the process, not just faculty developers, teaching and learning centers, and individual departments.

FINAL THOUGHTS This chapter emphasized the symbiotic relationship between inquiry-based education and student-centered environments. Although research has shown inquiry-based teaching and learning as a valuable learning theory, it is vitally important to consider faculty members and students’ readiness for a student-centered learning environment in order to realize some level of success. It is important to consider some of the misconceptions on inquiry-based education, such as student-centered means little faculty guidance. It is a goal of this chapter to provide examples on how faculty can begin to adopt inquiry-based teaching methods with small sequences and work their way up to splicing together complex chains. To invoke an irrevocable shift in education, both in secondary and higher education, a system-wide level of inquiry-based, competent faculty needs to be brought to scale. Reiterating the OECD Directorate Schleicher (2010) quote at the beginning of the chapter, if today’s higher education faculty is charged with preparing “students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise” (Schleicher, 2010), how can we meet that challenge? Sustainable change

336

TRACY MILLER

needs institutional support and commitment, along with a measurable strategic plan.

REFERENCES Australian Council for Educational Research. (1999). Raising Australian standards in mathematics and science: Insights from TIMMS. ACER National Conference 1997. Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria. Azevedo, R., Behnagh, R. F., Duffy, M., Harley, J. M., & Trevors, G. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge. Banta, L., Crespi, E., Nehm, R., Schwarz, J., Singer, S., Manduca, C., … Caporale, L. (2012). Integrating genomic research throughout the undergraduate curriculum: A collection of inquiry-based genomics lab modules. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 203 208. Retrieved from http://www.lifescied.org. Accessed on March 14, 2014. Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309 328. Retrieved from www.iste.org Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/ about_webquests.html. Accessed on April 14, 2014. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103 120. Exploratorium. (n.d.). Sketchpad: Designing for exploration a collaboration with Stanford University. Retrieved from Exploratorium http://tinkering.exploratorium.edu/tinkering/ 2009/12/02/designing-for-exploration-a-teaching-project#.Uyhy6fldU1J. Accessed on March 18, 2014. Green, E., Borkan, J., Pross, S., Adler, S., Nothnagle, M., Parsonnet, J., & Gruppuso, P. (2010). Encouraging scholarship: Medical school programs to promote student inquiry beyond the traditional medical curriculum. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 409 418. Hartmann, H. (2012). Consuming and constructing knowledge through webQuests. In C. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention using online learning activities: Wikis, blogs, and webQuests (Vol. 6A, pp. 255 289). Cutting-Edge Technologies in Higher Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. Handbook of research on educational communications and technologies. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. Hines, S. (2014). How to evaluate faculty development. Education Learning Initiatives Online Spring Focus Session, Faculty Engagement and Development: Effective Innovative Practice. IMSA Problem-Based Learning Network. (n.d.). IMSA PBLNetwork: Collaborative inquiry in action. Retrieved from http://www.pbln.imsa.edu. Accessed on April 25, 2014. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 Higher education edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas.

How to Scale Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning

337

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75 86. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212 218. Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285 307. Retrieved from http://www.iste. org Miller, B. (2014a). Visual model. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/baileymichaelmiller/ senior-work. Accessed on July 29, 2014. Miller, B. (2014b). Visual model with ACTO. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/ baileymichaelmiller/senior-work. Accessed on July 29, 2014. Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219 225. Ragan, L., & McQuiggan, C. (2014). The quality transformation faculty development assessment framework. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiatives Online Spring Focus Session, Faculty Engagement and Development: Effective and Innovative Practice. Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Scheppler, J., Styer, S., Dosch, D., Traina, J., & Kolar, C. (2009). Student inquiry and research: Developing students’ authentic inquiry skills. In R. Yager (Ed.), Inquiry: The key to exemplary science (pp. 41 56). Arlington VA: National Science Teachers Association. Schleicher, A. (2010). The case for 21st-century learning. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/general/thecase for21st-centurylearning.htm. Accessed on March 12, 2014. University of Connecticut, Assessment. (n.d.). Assessment primer: Goals, objectives and outcomes. Retrieved from http://assessment.uconn.edu/primer/goals1.html. Accessed on April 25, 2014.

INQUIRY-BASED SERVICE LEARNING IN A UNIVERSITYBASED EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM: SERVICE LEADERSHIP AND INTERNSHIP IN A PRINCIPAL FELLOWS PROGRAM R. Martin Reardon ABSTRACT To lead effectively, educational leaders need to be both inquisitive about problems of practice and skilled in devising and implementing collaborative plans of action focused on redressing such problems. In response to changes in licensure regulations and criticisms notably from within the field that university-based programs have historically graduated ineffective educational leaders who fail to implement mandated reforms, programs have changed to include (a) a focus on the context in which graduates of the program will most likely lead (the local school communities) and (b) the immersion of program participants in a process of inquiry into problems of practice. Internships provide the setting for both

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 339 356 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001017

339

340

R. MARTIN REARDON

these inclusions. Referencing the concept of “elbow learning,” this chapter discusses how the inquiry-based and service learning ideals integrate in Service Leadership Projects (SLPs) conducted during the internship requirement of a university-based educational leadership program in a Mid-Atlantic state in the United States. SLPs are well-designed to enhance the agency of prospective educational leaders, while delivering both tangible and intangible benefits to both the university and the school in which the internship is conducted. SLPs dovetail with a long-standing, state-financed program that supports the development of leaders for public schools.

Information severed from thoughtful action is dead — Dewey (1916/2004, p. 146)

Effective educational leaders access information to inform action, but all too often, university programs that educate educational leaders are critiqued for ignoring information on their own effectiveness. What Kottkamp (2011) colorfully described as “the steam engine of condemnation” (p. 4) of university-based educational leadership programs arrived in 2005 in the form of critiques from Hess and Kelly (2005) and Levine (2005). As Kottkamp discussed at length, the critique was not unexpected. For example, in a national mail survey completed by 925 public school principals, Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett (2003) found that only 4% of respondents acknowledged their university-based training as the most valuable element of their preparation for their current position. Farkas et al. quoted one respondent who declared that graduate school was “probably the worst way of learning what it is that you need to do in order to be a principal or assistant principal” (p. 39). In contrast, respondents cited their previous on-the-job experiences (44%), and the mentoring and guidance they received from people with whom they had worked (52%) as their most valuable preparation. As a counterbalance to that grim verdict, while it is a little akin to damning with faint praise, 74% of the Farkas et al. respondents asserted that the graduate program they attended provided them with “some useful things that helped [them] prepare” (p. 40) for their current position. Finally, a remnant 10% went so far as to describe what they learned from their graduate program as indispensable.

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

341

COMPONENTS OF THE STEAM ENGINE In this section, I delineate four components of the 2005 steam engine of condemnation: (a) vested interests of the educational leadership professoriate, (b) lack of clarity of purpose in educational leadership programs, (c) a lack of agency among educational leaders as evidenced by their failure to engender an environment in which collective action can overcome the “default culture of public schools” (Elmore, 2005, p. 134), and (d) ineffective internships. The next four subsections offer brief overviews of each of these components.

Preservation of the Status Quo Fueled by Farkas et al. (2003) as well as other indicators of dissatisfaction, Hess and Kelly (2005), as one component of Kottkamp’s (2011) steam engine, argued strongly for what they described as radical reform (focused on admission requirements to programs, the role of gatekeepers, and the skills and knowledge required of educational leaders). They portrayed the educational leadership preparation landscape in stark terms: “The professional and personal material well-being of the education administration professoriate is built on the existing practice of administrator preparation, leaving them naturally averse to any effort to make radical changes that might weaken their role as gatekeepers” (p. 158). This portrayal correlates with the jaundiced perspective of the Farkas et al. respondent quoted in the introduction to this paper, and Murphy’s (2014) assertion that program participants get taught what people at universities know and can do which, given the fact that some educational leadership professors have never led a school, may have little to do with what a leader in the field needs to know.

Lack of Clarity of Purpose As another component of Kottkamp’s (2011) steam engine, Levine (2005), in reviewing the historical source of the ineffectiveness of university-based leadership preparation, sketched the barest outlines of the different viewpoints of three deans: James Earl Russell (Teachers College, Columbia University, New York), Henry Holmes (Harvard), and Charles Judd

342

R. MARTIN REARDON

(director of education at the University of Chicago). Russell advocated for a practitioner focus for school administrator programs. Holmes spurned the practitioner focus as preparation more appropriate for craftsmen, and advocated for an academic focus. Finally, Judd rejected both approaches (although he was more inclined to Holmes’s perspective) and called for a focus on “the science of education research” (Levine, 2005, p. 16) in the preparation of educational leaders. Levine saw in this debate the initial “fissures” (p. 15) of the current lack of consensus regarding “whom programs should enroll, what they should prepare their students to do, what they should teach, whom they should hire to teach, what degrees they should offer, and how educational administration relates to teaching and research” (p. 16). Levine (2005) highlighted the findings of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration (National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration [NCEEA], 1987) that called for departments of educational administrations to be “vibrant intellectual communities” (p. 23). The NCEEA (1987) declared that fewer than 200 of the then 505 institutions offering courses in school administration had the requisite resources and commitment to do so, and proposed that the rest “should cease preparing administrators” (p. 23). By the time Levine conducted his study, there were 1,206 education schools, and he was less generous than NCEEA, declaring that “we managed to locate only a small number of strong programs in the United States. None was considered exemplary” (p. 14). It is worth noting that later in his report Levine was a little more sanguine, and mentioned “strong” programs at University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. One of Levine’s complaints regarding the “race to the bottom” upon which (one presumes) the remaining 1,204 education schools are embarked was that “their curricula are disconnected from the needs of leaders and their schools” (p. 23).

Lack of Agency in an Atomized Environment A third component of the steam engine, although Kottkamp (2011) did not mention it, was what Elmore (2005) described as the low agency of school leaders in the face of increasing demands for accountability. Elmore referred to American schools as atomized: Characterized by a culture in which, in the absence of “collective expectation, values, and commitments” (p. 136), the summation of individual efforts is endemic.

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

343

Educational leaders, Elmore suggested, saw themselves as lacking the agency the power or ability to act to galvanize their teachers around a set of commonly held values. In the absence of a common vision, the default is for individual teachers to continue to work independently in an atomized fashion. Elmore depicted low agency as playing out in compliance, in the tendency for educational leaders to see themselves as largely passive in that they have their actions determined to a large degree by external pressures instead of by their own beliefs about education. In the atomized environment, at the teachers’ level, low agency takes the form of attributing poor student learning outcomes to student characteristics (not under the teachers’ control) rather than to ineffective teaching (which is very much under the teachers’ control).

Ineffective Internships A fourth component of the steam engine that Kottkamp (2011) recalled confronting emerged from the discordance between university-based programs’ course work and the realities faced by leaders in the field. Internships had been envisaged as providing a connection to the field, but the fourth component of the steam engine that also arrived in 2005 was the criticism of internships, as typified by Fry, Bottoms, and O’Neill (2005). Fry et al. asserted that, while potential educational leaders were involved in tasks during their internships, the tasks were not oriented to preparing them as leaders. In a survey of 61 programs in the 16-state region covered by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), Fry et al. found that “barely a third … require aspiring principals to lead activities that create a mission to improve student achievement and a vision of the elements of school, curriculum and instructional practices that make higher achievement possible” (p. 5). Six other findings were variants on this theme, leading Fry et al. to declare that there was “a disconnect between the work of today’s principals and the university preparation of new principals” (p. 5). This disconnect, they surmised, was an outcome of the fact that “preparing new principals to become leaders of change is not a top priority of most university leadership programs” (p. 5). This hearkens back to the “four percent” finding of Farkas et al. (2003) referenced above, and correlates with Murphy’s (2014) assertion that program participants get taught what people at universities know and can do.

344

R. MARTIN REARDON

ADDRESSING THE CRITIQUE The bad news that was delivered by the steam engine in 2005 was not totally unexpected, as Kottkamp (2011) pointed out. Following the passage of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), the subsequent years exposed the difficulty experienced by graduates of educational leadership programs in initiating sustainable change in schools. Clearly, action was warranted to (a) disrupt the status quo and ensure a strong connection between course work and practice, (b) provide clarity of purpose, (c) provide opportunities for potential educational leaders to develop a sense of agency, and (d) eliminate low-level tasks and “busy work” from internships. In fact, reconceptualizing the internship as elbow learning (Zambo, 2013), and requiring internship tasks that both qualify as service learning and demand an inquiry-based learning approach on the part of the intern redress all four of the steam engine problems.

An Effective Internship as Elbow Learning The first step is to reconceptualize the internship as elbow learning. Zambo (2013) applied G. Stanley Hall’s term “elbow learning” to refer to the “learning side-by-side from a mentor who has the expertise a student needs” (p. 237) that characterizes an effective internship. Hall had used the term to refer to the learning that was appropriate in a physical laboratory setting in which a mentor and student literally would be working elbow-toelbow. A laboratory is conventionally the site for experimentation and learning from experience. In Dewey’s (1916/2004) understanding, experience included both an active and a passive component. The active component involved “trying” in the sense of experimentation. The passive component involved “undergoing.” Dewey proposed that “when we experience something we act upon it, we do something with it; then we suffer or undergo the consequences. We do something to the thing and then it does something to us in return” (p. 133). Thus, Zambo’s (2013) use of the “elbow learning” term usefully extends Hall’s original coinage, and calls to mind the “laboratory of practice” concept that is embedded in the Shulman-inspired (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006) Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) initiative out of which Zambo’s paper emerged. Hence, elbow learning in an educational leadership program internship invokes an image

345

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

of an intern working side-by-side with a mentor in a laboratory of practice to develop agency through trying to “do something to the thing” (Dewey, 1916/2004, p. 133). Elbow learning also invokes the image of the mentor lending an arm of support as the thing the particular aspect of the educational environment upon which he or she has tried to do something does something back to him or her in return under the guise of learning. The concept of inquiry-based learning references just such an interaction.

Inquiry-Based Learning Inquiry-based learning (IBL) “flows from enthusiastic, questioning, purposeful, imaginative engagement with well-designed inquiry tasks, in a challenging but supportive learning environment” (Levy, Little, McKinney, Nibbs, & Wood, n.d., p. 6). Interest in IBL runs the gamut of formal education. Richardson (2012) spoke to the heart of the matter when, in the context of the integration of technology with teaching and learning in K-12 schools, he asked how we can encourage students to learn without us, given that they can easily connect with learning resources and learn whatever and whenever they want to do so. Earlier, the Boyer Commission (1998) emphasized the salience of IBL at the college undergraduate level, arguing for an integrated, interdisciplinary, inquiry-based freshman year focused on a single complicated subject or problem. The inquiry-based concept has since been taken-up at the graduate level. For instance, Indiana University Bloomington, School of Education (2014) currently offers both a masters and a terminal degree in inquiry methodology. Albright, Petrulis, Vasconcelos, and Wood (2012) asserted that IBL “is particularly appropriate to apply to the investigation and exploration of fuzzy and open-ended situations, for which there [are] no pre-defined answer[s]” (p. 21). To refer back to the point made by Levy et al. (n.d.), the inquiry task should be well-designed, but the environment of schools is inherently complicated, complex, fuzzy, and open ended, making IBL a fitting approach for an internship project particularly in the context of the SLPs to be discussed shortly.

Service Learning The potential connection between an internship and service learning becomes immediately evident in reviewing the definitions incorporated in

346

R. MARTIN REARDON

the National and Community Service Act (1990). Service learning is defined as a method “under which students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet actual community needs and that are coordinated in collaboration with the school and community” (Sec. 101. Definitions, 21A). Subsequently, the term “student” is defined as referring to “an individual who is enrolled in an elementary or secondary school or institution of higher education on a full- or part-time basis” (Sec. 101. Definitions, 27). The intern learns and develops as a leader by carrying out a range of activities in collaboration with the school leadership that serve the carefully discerned needs of the school community. Dubus (2014), in grounding a pilot project in social work, briefly reviewed the recent history of service learning in higher education. Dubus suggested that service learning has been increasingly integrated into the curriculum since the 1990s. For example, Harkavy and Hartley (2010) construed service learning as the pursuit of Franklin’s dream, and declared that “few educational innovations have achieved such relatively rapid success” (p. 418) in American higher education. Espino and Lee (2011) described how service learning enabled undergraduates to appreciate the ramifications of race and privilege. Dubus also referenced benefits to communities (from the contributed services of student) and educational institutions (that gain visibility, research opportunities, and feedback on the institutional mission and goals) from service learning. Fry et al. (2005) deplored the impoverished opportunities to learn that were offered to some school leadership interns. By contrast, casting the internship as a servicelearning opportunity orients the experience to meaningful leadership learning outcomes.

RECONCEPTUALIZING THE INTERNSHIP AND INTEGRATING IBL Reconceptualizing the internship as meaningful elbow learning in the context of an inquiry-based, service-learning mindset lays the foundation for an optimal setting in which potential educational leaders can effectively hone their leadership skills. Service learning invokes the concept of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) that characterizes the way that educational leaders operate by foregrounding the concerns of those who are led. The faculty at a North Carolina university decided to create such an optimal

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

347

internship setting in which interns develop six inquiry-based servicelearning projects as a way of ensuring that they learn to walk the talk (Sawyer, 2013). These six projects were integrated into the Masters in School Administration (MSA) program as part of a re-design of courses prompted by licensure revisions.

Service Leadership Projects Six inquiry-based service-learning projects, referred to as SLPs, were developed to focus participants’ attention on developing the competencies distilled from all seven North Carolina School Executive Standards (North Carolina State Board of Education, 2009). The titles of the six SLPs are: (a) positive impact on student learning and development, (b) teacher empowerment and leadership, (c) community involvement and engagement, (d) organizational management, (e) school culture and safety, and (f) school improvement. Each SLP is integrated into a single related course, and is specifically assigned 1 of the 3 course credits, with the other 2 credits assigned to course work. The SLPs are high-profile elements of each course in which they integrated, with 35% of the course assessment allocated to them. In keeping with the Levy et al. (n.d.) recommendation, each SLP consists of the same set of steps applied to different course-specific contexts. Thus, participants grow more confident with the process as they complete successive SLPs as they proceed through the program. Initially, interns collect data on their chosen issue within the context of the course. For example, in the course focused on school culture and safety, one participant might focus an SLP on the school’s Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) program (e.g., instituting a consensus-based rubric for a PBIS token economy and its associated reward structure), while another might focus on the structure and implementation of a school’s parent volunteer program. Participants are encouraged to exercise discernment in selecting and capturing the most pertinent data for their particular focus. The second step is to analyze the captured data and identify areas for improvement. The third step involves the participants in both accessing relevant literature and listening to colleagues as they heighten their awareness of the language used by local stakeholders and academics in talking about this issue. By taking a constant comparison approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), interns become aware of how different perspectives on the same issue play out in linguistic similarities and

348

R. MARTIN REARDON

Table 1. Coverage of the North Carolina School Executive Standards by the SLPs. NC SES

SLP 1

SLP 2

SLP 3

SLP 4

SLP 5

SLP 6

1: Strategic L’ship 2: Instructional L’ship 3: Cultural L’ship 4: Human Resources L’ship 5: Managerial L’ship 6: External Development L’ship 7: Micro-political L’ship

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

abcd ab abcd abc abcd ab a

differences. The fourth step directs participants to develop and refine an action plan to address the issue. This action plan is expected to engage multiple local stakeholders and clearly lay out a feasible approach to dealing with the issue. Finally, participants are directed to evaluate their SLP. This step encourages both reflection and the provision of evidence of effectiveness relating to their SLP. Participants are made aware that it may be unrealistic to expect success on such a short time line, but that a sense of “change is in the air” could well be expected. Table 1 shows the effective coverage of the North Carolina School Executive Standards by the SLPs. The first column in Table 1 shows the seven North Carolina School Executive Standards. Each of the Standards (except for 7) is divided into up to four components. These components are designated by the letters “a” through “d” (see Table 1). Many SLPs address multiple components to at least some extent, so all the letter-designated components of the Standards are included under all SLPs, but the letter that designates the component that is the special focus of each SLP is enlarged and bolded. Many letter-designated component of North Carolina School Executive Standards contain multiple paragraphs, so there is minimal overlap, even in cases (e.g., Cultural Leadership) where the same letterdesignated component of the Standards is addressed twice.

Principal Fellows Program The SLP is an elegant learning tool in the conventional part-time Master of School Administration (MSA) program, but it is arguably in the context of the long-established North Carolina Department of Education’s Principal Fellows Program (PFP) that the SLP is at its most effective. The PFP is

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

349

a competitive, merit-based scholarship loan to individuals of exceptional academic ability who have teaching or relevant experience and who desire to enter school administration in a North Carolina public school. Fellows have the opportunity to attend [an internship] school on a full-time basis and earn an MSA degree in two years. (NC Principal Fellows Program, 2014, para. 1)

The full-time internship of the PFP provides a more intense experience than the part-time internship of the MSA program. The full-time internship more closely approximates the real-life experience of leading a school and contributes to the PFP’s reputation for preparing effective leaders. The PFP’s reputation is attested to by its longevity and popularity: the PFP has been in place since 1994 and is currently available at 11 universities across North Carolina. Since its inception, some 1,200 Principal Fellows have completed the PFP. The Principal Fellows are on a leave of absence without pay from their local education authority (LEA) for the two years of the PFP. For the first year, Principal Fellows receive a scholarship loan of $30,000. In their second year, they receive the equivalent of a beginning assistant principal ten-month salary, plus $4,100 for tuition and fees, while they engage in a full-time internship experience at a designated school. Upon completion, Principal Fellows must complete four years of service as a principal or assistant principal in a public school in North Carolina within six years of graduation to repay the scholarship loan.

ACTION AS AN OUTCOME OF INQUIRY IN THE PFP Before embarking on the first step of the SLP (data collection), Principal Fellows work closely with their principal mentors to decide in what way a particular SLP in a particular course context can be of service to the school. This involves dialog and environmental scanning in two schools over the course of the PFP, because the Principal Fellow is typically at one school for the first year, but serves as an intern at a different school in the second year. This process results in a wealth of experience as indicated by the broad range of issues that the SLPs of the recently graduated 19th cohort of Principal Fellows at ECU addressed over the course of the PFP: Bus route planning, critical incident response planning, fire drill procedures, student behavior on buses, teacher morale, middle school transition, PBIS, student equity, student personal development, teacher professional development, distributed leadership, student learning (graduation enhancement and dropout prevention, peer mediation, peer tutoring), parental

350

R. MARTIN REARDON

education, school organizational procedures, resources auditing, and health and wellness of students and teachers.

Broad Learning Outcomes and Service Provided An open-ended exit survey was conducted among the members of the 19th cohort at this university. All 18 members of this cohort graduated in spring 2014, and all members contributed extensively. Eight broad learning outcomes of their overall SLP involvement emerged from a grounded theory analysis of their responses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Proactivity The response that best typifies this learning outcome is “I learned the importance of being proactive when preparing/dealing with critical incidents. Although we do not want anything to happen in our schools, the world we live in today causes us always to be prepared.” A course requirement for these Principal Fellows had been to locate the school’s critical incident response kit (CIRK) and check that it contained useful information. One Principal Fellow was disconcerted to find that the emergency phone included in the CIRK was an analog phone long unusable on the national digital phone network. Others found personnel lists and school site maps that were years out of date. Accuracy of Data An illustrative response that also reveals something of the challenges for individuals involved in conducting the SLPs is I learned how important accurate data really are. I have analyzed a mass amount of data from the two schools where I conducted my SLPs. It is hard to measure any type of growth if you do not have accurate data in the beginning. The first step of the SLP process is very important. I probably dreaded doing the third step the most, but the research part of this step proved very beneficial to me while conducting the process.

Utility of Data Closely related to the accuracy of data was this response that addressed the necessity of searching for useful data from multiple sources.

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

351

Through the SLP process I learned where and how to find qualitative and quantitative data for two different schools. I became more confident in analyzing data and then using that data to make connections in my SLPs. I found out that some of the most valuable information comes from the common language of the various staff members at a school. Lastly, I learned that the SLP has the ability to make a major impact on a school, its culture/climate, and its stakeholders.

Inherent Complexity One Principal Fellow summed-up an exasperating but valuable learning experience by reflecting that “what initially seems like a relatively simple task sometimes takes more background time than the time to perform the task, regardless of the task.” Another earnestly shared “I learned that being a school leader is multi-faceted. There are so many lenses that you must look through when making decisions. It’s sort of like a game of Operation … one false move and ZAP!” In the internship environment, the ZAP is somewhat buffered by the context of the internship, but this buffering clearly did not lull this Principal Fellow into complacency. Resolve in the Face of Obstacles A number of responses addressed both the complexity of school leadership and the personal resolve that the leader is required to exhibit in support of change. In any school, there is always room for improvement on any process. There are so many components in a school, from academics, facilities, organization, scheduling, student safety, parent involvement, teacher support, etc., that could be updated or improved upon. Any change or improvement can and sometimes will be met with obstacles, but after consideration and revision most improvements will work. Support of ideas, leadership, and innovative thoughts should always be fostered and encouraged.

Other responses advocated the “one step at a time” approach to obstacles, and the advisability of valuing small gains. I learned that a large goal can seem insurmountable at first, however if you break the process down into chunks, it is feasible. I saw progress in every project I worked on. They did not all come to full fruition, but they all made some form of impact on the schools where the project was completed.

Implementing Change The following response is typical of those who delved more deeply into the process of implementing change in schools: “I learned that I prefer change

352

R. MARTIN REARDON

to happen at a grass roots level that is led by teachers. It seems to be more meaningful and powerful that way.” The reality of long time lines before changes gain traction was acknowledged in another typical response: The SLP process taught me that while some initiatives can happen relatively quickly, most take a substantial amount of time and effort. With most of my SLP’s [sic], it will take more than a semester or year to evaluate the final impact on the school.

Communication and Building Relationships In contrast to the slightly oppressive feel of the some of the preceding broad learning outcomes, there is a notable optimistic tone when it comes to the ubiquity (“these two topics were used in every SLP I completed”) and the effectiveness of establishing positive relationships: I learned that there is a lot that can be done to improve a school, and most of those things can fall into place when the teachers are happy and feel appreciated. Also, if the school has a good culture, then a lot of other things like the organizational management and school safety fall into place on their own.

Intimations of the Future Many of the responses looked to the future. In doing so, they continued the optimistic note of the preceding theme. A lot of my SLPs had to do with celebrating and supporting teachers and this action is something I truly believe in and will stay true to in my future career. I learned how tiny little notes can mean so much to a teacher who is having a hard day. Showing appreciation goes farther than we realize sometimes. When their plate is full, I will do all I can to take off, not add on. The relationships I build will determine the work environment for me and the staff.

A more prosaic response valued the preparation afforded by the SLPs: I learned that these projects are basically what we do as administrators. We do projects like these each and every day. While previously, we would not have looked at these projects with different lenses and in such intricate detail, these are what we will be doing for the rest of our careers.

More Finely Focused Inquiry-based Service Learning The participants and their schools learned much from the inquiry-based SLPs. Parsing the Principal Fellows’ survey responses in finer detail resulted in more focused learning outcomes in the SLP context. For

353

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

example, expanding on the communication and relationship-building aspect, a typical comment was “teacher empowerment is huge to me, [since] I believe that if the teachers feel appreciated, a lot of other things would be a lot easier to deal with. When teachers are happy they teach better, they are more organized and their students learn more.” By contrast, many voiced their exasperation when the environment against which they pushed, pushed back, along the lines of this quote: “It is impossible to conduct these projects without other people. This can be the most frustrating part. When you have to rely on others for things, it can thwart your plans.” Another participant reflected that “I also learned that it is hard to piece together a team if all the members are not on board. That was a little bit of a challenge.” The level of detail required for a successful SLP elicited much comment along the lines of “many big ideas are often not big deals, but merely tons of small details that culminate into a massive quantity.” This point of a seemingly small change making a noticeable difference was mentioned numerous times. A good example is this participant’s comment: “I also learned that no matter how small something may seem it could make a tremendous impact on many people. By providing water coolers on each hallway we improved people’s accessibility to healthier beverage options.” Along the same lines, another mused that “one idea can transform the entire climate of the school, which can have positive, long-lasting effects on the culture of the school.” Finally, one of the more poignant reflections directly referenced the inquiry-based approach to the SLP and the empowerment concept. To recap, the Principal Fellows initiated their SLPs by holding conversations with the leaders of their internship schools. They were encouraged to use any existing documents and listen and learn in preparation for their initiating conversation. One participant commented that I came upon the idea of this project by starting with the school’s strategic plan and picking goals from the needs assessment. I was shocked to learn that there was nothing in place in regards to promoting positive behavior, or to provide recognition for students either academically or behaviorally. With the project in full swing, I realized that one person can start a movement within a school.

Value to the School The value to the school of the SLPs is implicit throughout the Principal Fellows’ responses. Particular instances of value added to the school are

354

R. MARTIN REARDON

specific by their very nature, but enlighten the extent to which the Principal Fellows became immersed with their SLPs in the context of their internship. For example, one Principal Fellow commented that the elementary school I worked at benefited tremendously. This was a school in which the parent involvement varied little to none. By working as the after-school tutoring director, I was able to create a Twitter account to keep them informed and try to communicate with them using a new method.

In this particular case, it is interesting to conjecture whether the “tremendous” benefit emerged from this participant’s role as the after-school tutoring director or the creation of the Twitter account to “try to communicate” with the parents. Another Principal Fellow added some additional nuances to the value of his/her involvement to the school in reflecting that I know that I have truly made a difference to the group of 6th grade students I worked with all year. These students come up to me every single time they see me. They know that I care. Their parents know me. The students always know they can come to my office, and I will be there for them. This gave me a personal connection with students that I previously got in the classroom on a daily basis. It also helped me establish relationships with the 6th grade teachers. They began calling on me more often with concerns and issues they had with the students. It helped establish a level of trust between the teachers and myself.

As a final example that rounds out this value-added perspective, at a more empirical level, a final Principal Fellow reported that the Data Wall has made a huge impact on the school at which I am interning. The school did not have one when I started, and it was an idea that the principal was eager to begin. I had the full support of administration, and the teachers were enthusiastic when they saw the wall come to life. They have used the information that the wall provided to plan instruction, flex grouping, differentiated instruction, and acceleration of the higher students. They plan to continue the wall and include math data next year. I am very proud of this project and the impact it has had on our reading scores.

INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THOUGHTFUL ACTION The relevance of the concept of elbow learning (Zambo, 2013) to the SLP in the internship context is reflected in this comment from one of the Principal Fellows who asserted that “the value in the SLPs was in the

355

Inquiry-Based Service Learning

opportunities they provided to work in the school setting alongside school personnel and students.” Nevertheless, the internship maintains its importance as the broader context. As one Principal Fellow declared, “the internship is where I am doing most of my learning. Without this experience I don’t think the SLPs would have been enough. SLPs are like snapshots of the administrative position. The internship is the full picture.” An effective inquiry-based, service-learning oriented internship in a university-based educational leadership program provides invaluable onthe-job-experience, mentoring, and guidance to prospective educational leaders. Through intensive involvement with the life of a school, the intern in an effective internship is engaged in a well-designed and substantive inquiry-learning experience. Through this experience, the intern becomes aware of his or her own agency, and the crucial importance of, in turn, enhancing teachers’ agency, thereby lessening the likelihood that his or her school will be characterized as an atomized academic environment. A welldesigned and pervasive SLP process clearly delineates how Principal Fellows can exert their own agency and maximize both their learning and the benefit to their internship schools in the specific areas specified in state standards. Despite its acknowledged contribution to the prospective educational leaders’ education in one group of Principal Fellows, the SLP does not subsume all the learning experiences of the internship. Rather, the SLP effectively engages the inquisitive mind of the intern inspired by the inclination to lead and imbued with the ability to serve (Harkavy & Hartley, 2010) in an appropriate laboratory of practice (Shulman et al., 2006).

REFERENCES Albright, K., Petrulis, R., Vasconcelos, A., & Wood, J. (2012). An inquiry-based approach to teaching research methods in information science. Education for Information, 29, 19 38. doi:10.3233/EFI-2012-0912 Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/engagedlearning/research/pdfs/Boyer_Report.pdf Dewey, J. (1916/2004). Democracy in education. Mineola, NY: Dover. Dubus, N. (2014). Applied learning: A project for graduate social work students. Social Work Education, 33(2), 254 270. doi:10.1080/02615479.2013.805193 Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134 142. doi:10.1080/00131720508984677 Espino, M. M., & Lee, J. J. (2011). Understanding resistance: Reflections on race and privilege through service-learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(2), 136 152. doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.558424

356

R. MARTIN REARDON

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A. (with Syat, B., & Vine, J.) (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. New York, NY: Public Agenda. Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2010). Pursuing Franklin’s dream: Philosophical and historical roots of service-learning. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 418 427. Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of principal preparation reform. Educational Policy, 19, 155 180. doi:10.1177/ 0895904804270776 Indiana University Bloomington, School of Education. (2014). Retrieved from http:// education.indiana.edu/graduate/programs/inquiry-methodology/ Kottkamp, R. B. (2011). Introduction: Leadership preparation in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 3 17. doi:10.1177/0011000010378609 Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Levy, P., Little, S., McKinney, P., Nibbs, A., & Wood, J. (n.d.). The Sheffield companion to inquiry-based learning. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield. Murphy, J. (2014). Notes on the EdD/PhD discussion in the UCEA Review: The essential question. UCEA Review, 55(1), 25 26. National and Community Service Act. (1990). Pub.L. 101 610, 104 Stat. 3127, S. 1430. National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for America’s schools. University Council for Educational Administration. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED286265.pdf NC Principal Fellows Program. (2014). The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program. Retrieved from http://www.ncpfp.org/index.htm No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. 107-110, Rec. 1425. 115 Stat. North Carolina State Board of Education. (2009). North Carolina school executive: Principal evaluation process. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.haywood.k12.nc. us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NC_Principal_8_2011.pdf Richardson, W. (2012). Preparing students to learn without us. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 22 26. Sawyer, R. D. (2013). Learning to walk the talk: Designing a teacher leadership EdD program as a laboratory of practice. Planning and Changing, 44(3 4), 208 220. Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25 32. doi:10.3102/0013189X035003025 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zambo, D. (2013). Elbow learning about change, leadership, and research in a CPEDinfluenced program. Planning and Changing, 44(3 4), 237 251.

CONFIDENT VOICES: HOW PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS BY TEACHERS USING VIDEO PROMOTES INQUIRY-BASED PRACTICE Michelle R. Edgcomb, Sherri J. Morris and Kelly D. McConnaughay ABSTRACT This study examined educators’ self-perception as practitioners of inquiry-based math and science instruction, their motivation to produce videos to share that practice, and the impact of video production on their use of inquiry and role in the professional development community. Semi-structured interviews were used to address the research questions. Participant responses indicated a high level of self-reflection and a keen understanding of the nature of inquiry-based math and science teaching. Participants were motivated to share their practice largely by their desire to help other educators develop as inquiry practitioners. Articulating how and why they used inquiry-based techniques for the videos deepened their

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 357 375 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001018

357

358

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

already reflective teaching. The positive aspects of participation also increased their confidence in their ability to engage in professional development as teacher-leaders. Overall this study indicated that videos created for the purposes of professional development had a transforming effect on those who produced them in addition to their benefit for others.

INTRODUCTION A desire for more effective education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is commonly acknowledged in American discourse. This topic is so pervasive that President Obama identified the need for investment in science and math education no fewer than three times in his 2010 State of the Union address (Obama, 2010). The perceived deficit in STEM education is supported by results from international testing including the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA; Kelly et al., 2013). In 2012, the most recent year for which scores were available, 15-year-olds in the United States performed below average for the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in math (481 compared to an average of 494) and about average in science (497 compared to an average of 501). These results remain virtually unchanged during the years U.S. students have taken the test, since 2003 in math and 2006 in science, and while they may not paint as bleak of a picture as sometimes implied, they do not portray the United States as a world leader in terms of STEM achievement. The need for improved STEM education is easier to identify than the best means to get there. Historically STEM education is not a unified whole, but rather classes segmented by discipline with math instruction separate from science instruction. Traditional math and science education places the emphasis on rote learning or memorization of facts (Korb, Sirola, & Climack, 2005; National Science Resources Center, 1997; Nelson, 1999). In contrast, STEM education reform efforts aim to have students learn material in a manner more consistent with the way knowledge in STEM fields is developed. This approach, referred to as inquiry-based education, is a student-active model where learners construct their own understandings by using discipline-specific process skills (Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry, 2014; Hogan & Berkowitz, 2000). Some examples for science include: observation, hypothesis formation, data collection, and data analysis. In the inquiry-based approach students are encouraged to ask questions

Video Exemplars

359

or pose problems and seek out solutions in a manner consistent with how STEM professionals work. Skills such as the ability to form a hypothesis, analyze data, and share results are underlined in addition to mere understanding of content. Rather than an all-or-nothing approach, educators can thoughtfully incorporate aspects of inquiry, moving from a more structured, teacher-directed experience to a more open, student-directed one (Hogan & Berkowitz, 2000; Pathway, 2011). The emphasis on inquiry in the STEM education standards reflects the skill set in demand for workers in the twenty-first century, including the ability to problem solve and communicate effectively (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2003). These reform measures were codified in the National Science Education Standards (NSES) adopted in 1996 (National Research Council, 1996). Likewise the concept of inquiry was expanded and refined as part of the “science and engineering practices” in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Next Generation Science Standards, 2014). So if inquiry-based standards for STEM education have been around for almost twenty years, why is the impact not felt more? While inquiry-based education is a pillar of STEM standards, it is not always evident in the classroom. STEM education begins with STEM teacher preparation. The most common model in pre-service education is to have discipline-specific content courses (e.g., math and science) taught separately from pedagogy courses (Kelly, 2000; McDermott, 1990). This tends to create a gulf between effective practice for teaching science and educators’ own experience with STEM instruction. The result is for educators to teach mainly in the traditional way they were taught themselves, rather than the reform, inquiry-based way presented in the their pedagogy classes and reflected in the standards (Kelly, 2000; Zubrowski, 2007). This is compounded by the view that traditional teaching methods are less risky (Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002). So what is the best way to move teachers past the safe method of STEM instruction and towards constructivist pedagogies that are considered most appropriate for learners? The gap between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge needs to be bridged. One approach is to change the way pre-service education is structured, but that does not address the needs of in-service educators. To reach those already in the classroom, effective professional development is a key. Professional development can be effective at increasing educators’ content understanding and comfort with pedagogy when properly designed. Effective designs often tie subject-area content to the curriculum of the attendees and offer opportunities for educators to make explicit connections to their work (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001;

360

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). The actual structure of the professional development programs may vary, although non-traditional formats that involve teachers from more than one school or longer experiences can help (Garet et al., 2001). One type of non-traditional format being tested in STEM education is the use of videos of actual classroom teaching as a development tool. Video is a way to link classroom practice with professional development activities. Video paired with instruction can help pre-service educators connect educational theory with practice (Moreno & Ortegano-Layne, 2008). Video analysis can be used to prompt discussion about practice among in-service educators (Herbst & Kosko, 2012) and to increase the depths of those conversations (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008). However, the use of video may be hampered as education has long been a solitary project and educators may be hesitant to publically share their classroom practices (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2003). A better understanding of what motivates teachers to share their classroom practice could increase availability of video for purposes of professional development. The Effective Practices in Inquiry-based Science and Math Instruction (EPISMI) project was designed to produce videos of inquiry-based STEM education for the purpose of professional development. Educators were invited to take part in the EPISMI project based on their exceptional use of inquiry-based techniques as identified during classroom observations. Each video highlighted specific techniques used by the instructor. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of video production on participating educators and to better understand their motivations to share their classroom practices.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on situated cognition theory. According to this theory, learning is a social event during which an individual draws on the accumulated knowledge of peers (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Resnick, 1987; Wenger, 1998). Learning thus developed cannot be separated from the context in which it was developed, rather it is a way to engage with a community (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). When learners work in common to develop a shared understanding, their learning becomes situated in a “community of practice” (Cobb, McClain, deSiva Lamberg, & Dean, 2003; Wenger, 1998, pp. 72 73).

361

Video Exemplars

Individuals can be involved to a greater or lesser degree in a number of communities of practice. This study involved a group of in-service educators active in a community of practice. They enrolled as a cohort in a graduate program in STEM education. The 33-month program engaged the cohort in extensive discussion of both STEM content and pedagogy to develop a shared understanding of inquiry-based teaching practice. The educators agreed to make video exemplars of their teaching practice, which involved choosing inquiry-based lessons, creating storyboards of the lesson for the videographer, and identifying aspects of inquiry to highlight. This iterative process involved extensive collaboration both in-person during four meetings and via email. Engaging in discussion this way reinforced the existing community of practice. By making the videos, the participants in the study also expanded their roles as emerging leaders in a professional development community of practice. Furthermore, the videos can themselves be used in professional development for novice inquiry users to create new communities of inquirybased practitioners.

METHODS Video Production The videos were produced by Bradley University’s Math and Science Partnership team with funding from two Illinois Math and Science Partnership (IMSP) grants. Highly skilled teacher leaders from two MSPfunded graduate program cohorts were selected to serve as inquiry teaching role models. The project team also included university faculty, two of our program staff, both retired educators with expertise in classroom implementation, and a professional videographer. The planning phase of the project took nearly a year. First, the project team developed a process for identifying inquiry-based science or math lessons suitable for filming. A reflective, iterative process of lesson development followed, in which potential lessons were aligned with the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn & Sawada, 2000). Lessons were then annotated including timing cues to help the videographer capture essential features of the lesson and to prepare for shot perspectives (e.g., teacher/class, teacher/student, student/student, student/class). The filming of the videos was accomplished over a six-month period. Raw footage of the classroom lessons and interviews were used to create

362

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

storyboards, narrative scripts were developed, and the final editing took another eight months. The resulting rough-cut videos were pre-screened with K-12 educators who were novice inquiry users. Faculty then led discussions on the practice of inquiry-based teaching and asked the novice inquiry teachers to reflect on the effectiveness of the videos themselves as an instructional tool. The results of these discussions were used to revise the videos as necessary and to develop materials to accompany the videos so they can be used without direct guidance from program staff. The final edited videos include footage of classroom lessons that highlight specific aspects of inquiry, which are interspersed with interviews where educators discuss their pedagogical strategies.

Participant Recruitment The study included six, K-12 educators who were videotaped for the production of inquiry-based instruction exemplars. They came from different schools, districts, and grade levels. All of the educators were currently or previously enrolled in a professional masters program for STEM education and leadership and had demonstrated high levels of inquiry-based technique as evaluated using the RTOP (Piburn & Sawada, 2000).

Ethical Concerns Ethical concerns arose through the relationship of the interviewer with the participants. Five of the participants were former students and one was enrolled in a class with the interviewer at the time of recruitment. The letter of consent noted that participation in the research project was voluntary. Outside of the initial interview request, the interviewer did not contact her current student about the project. The student approached the interviewer to indicate a desire to participate and the interview was scheduled for a time convenient for the student.

Data Collection and Analysis Research questions were developed to assess the impact of video production on the participants. The research questions were used to develop interview questions. Semi-structured interviews probed participants’ ideas about

363

Video Exemplars

their understanding and use of inquiry, their motivation to share their teaching practices, and impacts of the videos. Two interviews were conducted: one before filming and one after production. The pre-interview consisted of 18 questions, which were assessed for content validity by a doctoral student in a qualitative research course. The questions were organized by content, starting with demographic questions and followed by questions related to inquiry, professional development activities, and impact of the videos. The post-interview consisted of 11 questions, which were assessed for content validity by the researchers in the study. Of the six participants who consented to pre-production interviews, four were available for post-production interviews. Pre-production interviews were conducted over a nine-week period, with five conducted prior to filming and one shortly after filming. Post-production interviews were conducted over a five-week period after final edits were made, over a year after the original filming. Interviews were conducted either in-person or via Skype. Auditory recordings were made of the interviews to use in addition to field notes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and participants were offered the opportunity to member-check their transcriptions for accuracy and meaning. Transcripts were coded using open coding. Codes were organized into categories, which were organized into themes used to address the research questions. Participant quotations, including any verbal pauses, were used to support researchers’ conclusions.

Research Questions 1. How do educators view themselves in terms of their understanding and use of inquiry-based techniques? 2. What motivates educators to share their inquiry-based teaching practices as part of a professional development community? 3. What impact do educators believe the production of exemplar videos will have in terms of their personal use of inquiry and the use of inquiry by the broader teaching community? 4. How did the process of making the video exemplars compare to the participants’ expectations for the project? 5. How did the process of making the video exemplars impact the participants’ views of both their practice and their role in the professional development community? 6. How did the participants view the effectiveness of the video exemplars as a means of professional development?

364

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

Limitations of the Study Invitations to be part of the study were extended to educators who already used inquiry-based techniques in their STEM lessons. As such, they could be more willing to be videotaped than an educator who was less immersed in inquiry-based education. Their experiences and motivations may not translate directly to teachers who need greater professional development.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Snapshot of a Participant The study participants were veteran teachers with 9.25 years of experience on average. They were largely comfortable with observation as a form of professional development, although the degree of comfort varied somewhat between participants and also varied based on who was doing the observation. As Participant C noted, “I don’t have a problem with it [observation] um, now, if the superintendent walked in it’s a little bit different, but … I enjoy having people in my classroom.” This response was indicative of the participants’ attitudes toward sharing their practice. Highly reflective practitioners, they were forthcoming and thoughtful in the interviews. All of the participants had completed or were nearing completion of a Master’s program in inquiry-based STEM education and leadership. These experiences influenced their understanding and use of inquiry-based methods.

Initial Description of Inquiry and Use of Inquiry Methods Interview questions were designed to determine how the educators viewed themselves in terms of their understanding and use of inquiry-based techniques prior to the study and how the process of making the videos impacted these views. Although this issue was probed with specific questions, reflections on the nature and use of inquiry permeated responses. Upon analysis, two themes emerged, “inquiry as a way to construct meaning” and “overall use of inquiry.” Inquiry as a Way to Construct Meaning During pre-production interviews participants described inquiry in terms of student-active learning, a spectrum of practices, and the teacher as a

365

Video Exemplars

facilitator. There was widespread agreement across these categories, and codes were woven throughout the length of the interviews (Table 1). For both science and math classes, participants described inquiry as a set of student-active approaches (Table 1). They emphasized that inquiry encourages students to ask questions that they need to find a way to answer. Participant E highlighted the student-centered approach: I would say it’s more of an education where you are using questioning techniques, problem-solving type things. You’re developing concepts through more of an abstract type of learning, I think, where you’re giving, how do I want to say this, you’re giving kids more of the opportunity to take the wheel.

While participants stressed the role of students in inquiry-based education, they indicated that inquiry was not a one-size-fits-all definition, but rather a spectrum (Table 2). They identified ways to incorporate inquiry techniques into lessons that were not centered on student-derived questions. As participant B explained: I think there’s like a continuum of inquiry. Like there can be lessons that are um more teacher-directed but that have inquiry components to them and then all the way to where students come up with the question themselves and investigate um their questions, collect data, and arrive at some sort of answer that they can defend.

The idea of incorporating aspects of inquiry into lessons, sometimes a little at a time, appeared throughout the interviews both in the definition of inquiry and as a means of increasing the amount of inquiry in the classroom. Identifying inquiry as a spectrum was an important step to incorporation of inquiry practices. Viewing inquiry as an all-or-nothing approach could limit novices’ willingness to assume the risk associated with inquiry. Table 1. Sample of Codes Related to Inquiry as a Means of Active Learning. Experiment Figure things out Make meaning Way of thinking

Exploration Defend answers Open-ended Nature of science

Ah-ha moment Actively engage Real life Investigate

Table 2. Sample of Codes Related to Inquiry as a Spectrum of Practices. Spectrum Continuum

Tweaking Components

Shift Levels of inquiry

366

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

For students to construct their own knowledge, the teacher needed to support that endeavor in the role of facilitator. This multifaceted role included the willingness to relinquish some control over the lessons (as opposed to control of the classroom) (Table 3). Participant D described the changed role of a teacher in an inquiry lesson as compared to a traditional lesson this way: … You take a step back and you let the kids work through it and so you help them if they get caught up …. It’s definitely different than standing at the front of the room and lecturing about something. It’s much more um take a back seat and then be a support for them rather a directed instructor for them.

Overall Use of Inquiry The second theme to emerge was the overall pattern of use of inquiry. Not only did participants describe similar definitions of inquiry and their roles as facilitators, but they also described a similar trajectory in their personal use of inquiry. Participants reported that they used inquiry either often or as often as possible. The amount of class time this represented varied from participant to participant with some reporting regular, but not daily use, and others indicating that it infused most lessons and had become second nature. Participant E illustrated the latter, “It’s just you can’t get it out of your day …. It’s always interwoven through your day …” This level of use was not obtained overnight. Almost all of the participants indicated that their level of comfort with inquiry and their use of inquiry increased over time. As Participant A described it: … I think the difference between me last year as compared to my first year, my first year I would have said, well, forget it, I’m not going to do it again. Next this … now I’m thinking, all right, how can I do this differently … I’ve already, you know, thought about what I’m going to [do] differently this coming year to make it hopefully a little bit more effective.

Table 3.

Sample of Codes Related to the Role of the Teacher in an Inquiry-Oriented Classroom.

Facilitator Planning Questioning techniques Control factor

Community Intentional Take risks Convince students

Support Set boundaries Provide materials Assess in different ways

367

Video Exemplars

The willingness to try again, both the same lesson in another year and a different lesson within the same year might have been the most important attribute of an inquiry-based teacher. By working through frustrations with students, teachers modeled the perseverance and reflection required to actively construct knowledge. Participants did not necessarily note that aspect when describing their practice, but it was apparent as they described their classrooms. Participants’ descriptions of inquiry were in broad agreement with the NSES, the NGSS, and the approach of the Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry (Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry, 2014; National Research Council, 1996; NGSS, 2014). This agreement, along with their descriptions of classroom practice, established the participants as experienced users of inquiry prior to filming.

Initial Description of Role in Professional Development Community At the beginning of this study, the participants described multiple roles in the professional development community from consumer to presenter. Most commonly the participants were active at the building level. This involved serving as a mentor for new teachers and student teachers, acting as lead teacher in a content area, or attending workshops and then presenting the information to colleagues. Two participants were starting to present at the district level. Overall, making the videos represented a step toward production of professional development for a wide, rather than a local, audience.

Patterns of Transformation Post-Production While the videos were designed to help novice inquiry users, production impacted the featured educators as well. During post-production interviews, participants noted shifts in their personal practice and their roles in the professional development community as a result of making the videos. Impact on Teaching Practice Video has been shown to increase discussion of teaching practices and also deepen those discussions (Borko et al., 2008; Herbst & Kosko, 2012; Sherin & Han, 2004). Likewise in this study, all of the participants emphasized the reflective nature of video production, and especially how making

368

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

the videos expanded their already reflective tendencies. Participant B explained the process of production this way: It helps me to like reflect more in-depth maybe on the specifics of that lesson and think of what types of questions might someone ask if they were watching me rather than just my general reflection, like how-did-it-go type of questions.

Participant F went even further, noting that the process helped foster student reflection: It definitely made me think about the inquiry kind of process overall … how to get them [the students] to be reflective during the process as well and afterwards. Um, so not only was it my personal reflection, it was also getting the kids to really think about the process, too.

Growing Role in the Professional Development Community During post-production interviews, the participants were asked to describe how the videos affected their role in the professional development community. Over the production cycle, all four participants indicated an increasing role. Not all of the increases were tied to the videos solely or directly; the participants were motivated educators continuing to progress in their careers. However, two participants noted that working with the program increased their confidence in their inquiry-based skills and their ability to help others. As Participant D stated: I’ve reached out because I think it’s important. Um, I think getting the inquiry message out there and between both grad school and the EPISMI project, um, it’s given me the tools to be able to communicate that to other people.

In discussing district-level professional development focused on reform standards, Participant F noted increased willingness to share; “You have all different perspectives, I at least feel like I can add my two cents because I have some experience with it [inquiry] so that’s helpful.” After making the videos, one participant sought out an opportunity to create further video-based professional development tools. Based on the pre-interview, this participant was most likely to seek out videos prior to the project and did not tie the secondary work to these videos specifically. However, the participant noted an increased confidence that came with participation in EPISMI. This increased confidence paired with historic use of video likely combined to further move the participant from consumer to a producer of video-based professional development tools. Two other participants shared the videos with local administrators in an effort to see them

369

Video Exemplars

used locally. While this has not happened yet, it indicates a shift toward increased engagement as providers of professional development.

Educators’ Motivation to Share Practice Both the production of the videos and sharing them with administrators represented significant sharing of instructional practice. Education is often a remarkably solitary pursuit, and the willingness to demonstrate oftenmisunderstood techniques is not without risk. Reluctance to engage publically has limited the use of video in professional development (Hiebert et al., 2003). In light of this, understanding why the educators agreed to the video project was an essential part of this study. Information regarding motivation for making the videos was embedded throughout the preproduction interview. Responses indicated two aspects of engagement, the importance of overcoming de-motivating forces and the power of motivating forces. De-Motivating Forces The participants weighed potential negatives when agreeing to develop the videos. The first was probably the most personal. Prior to making the videos, not all of the participants considered themselves to be exemplary users of inquiry. In the case of this de-motivating force, simply being asked to participate in developing the videos helped overcome reluctance. As Participant A explained: I don’t know, it’s like [you] feel like you’re one of those kids … in a classroom where there are some really smart kids or whatever or people in there and it’s like, I don’t feel I’m as good as they are type thing. … I guess they asked me for a reason to be there so so I just need to keep that in the back of my mind.

Another common concern involved the filming of the videos themselves. The most common previous experience with videotaping was in undergraduate teacher education programs. Those experiences were not always positive. Participant F summarized how videotaping of practice can impact a novice teacher: … and I hated it. … I didn’t like it because I wasn’t confident with the material I was doing and I felt like it was a way for them just to nitpick even more and find things I was doing wrong. I wasn’t look[ing] at it as a way for me to criticize my own teaching.

370

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

Reluctance to be videotaped and fear of harsh critique has been reported in the literature as a possible limitation of use of video in professional development (Hiebert et al., 2003). In this study, Participant A demonstrated the power of being asked to participate, and the accompanying validation of instructional practice, in overcoming reluctance. Participant F showed the reason for making the videos also mattered: I think part of the difference was I knew they weren’t just going to be showing a whole … clip of just my class and the idea they they’re looking for best practice … So I think the idea that they’re looking for best practices um and that they’re not looking for mistakes I’m making actively, hopefully, that made me less nervous about the process in general.

Further ways to overcome potential reluctance to be videotaped fell into the theme of motivating forces. Motivating Forces The participants in this study felt strongly about inquiry-based teaching practices and they saw the videos as a way to contribute to the field of education. They indicated that their desire to help other educators ultimately outweighed their reluctance to be videotaped. As Participant B related: … I just didn’t feel like very uh confident. I don’t know if that’s the right word, but just like it [the thought of being taped] made me a little bit nervous I guess. … I think it’s important for other teachers to be able to learn from so I guess if I can help do that, that’s cool.

Several educators thought that they could contribute by making the practice of inquiry visible and accessible to other educators. They noted that educators needed to be able to see what inquiry looked like in a classroom to truly understand inquiry-based teaching as a practice. Participant C articulated this idea: … I’m hoping that it will um give new teachers, and even teachers that have been in the trenches, it’ll give them an idea of what inquiry looks like and I think that a lot of people need to see it in action. They need to see what the role of teacher is; they need to understand that there’s going to be more activity and that that’s okay.

Participant D noted that this sharing of practice could be especially useful for educators who are new to inquiry practices and who might otherwise get discouraged: … I kind of hope that I have the opportunity to make a point that um to the teachers that watch the video especially the segment that I am in that it is all about small steps

371

Video Exemplars

and making small steps. You know, don’t let yourself become overwhelmed with this or it’s not going to happen and just do a little bit at a time and you’ll get better at it and the students will appreciate it more.

Participants did not see the impact of the videos as limited to schools. They delineated potential benefits to their communities that the researchers did not anticipate when designing the interview questions. More than one participant noted that the videos could be a way to showcase good things that were happening in the schools. These good things could contribute to a sense of pride and accomplishment throughout the community. A final motivating force focused on the potential personal impact of the videos. Although several participants indicated that making the videos could increase their leadership role in the professional development community, the rest of the responses tended to be fairly individual. There was broad consensus that the videos would have affective benefits, but what the benefits would be were spread out among participants. Codes related to these benefits are summarized in Table 4.

Educators’ Assessment of Their Experience with Video Production Actual production of the videos did much to mitigate initial concerns. Overall the participants felt the making of the videos was a positive experience that bolstered confidence in their practice, as Participant F noted: I mean the … the way they edited to pull the little things out … that was really cool. I didn’t even know I did that. So, just trust in your own ability that, you know, you are doing what comes natural, but you’re actually probably doing it very well.

Equally important, participants indicated that the final product was beneficial. Participant F again noted, “They were edited really well and I think they really did highlight the key ideas um that you guys were looking for.” On compilation videos showing many educators, Participant F added, “I thought the compilations were really interesting to … to see, um, the same idea in multiple classrooms, multiple content areas, multiple ages.” Table 4.

Sample Codes Related to Personal Impact of the Exemplar Videos.

Grow professionally Sense of accomplishment Take risks

Become better teacher Break out of comfort zone Confirmation of practice

Have voice heard Less fear to share Evidence of growth in inquiry

372

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

CONCLUSIONS Educational reform in the math and sciences presents significant challenges. The conversation on the need for improved performance in math and science continued over the past fifty years (Abramson, 2007; Kliebard, 2004). In the United States, the nationwide promotion of constructivist approaches that encourage students to learn the practices of science and mathematics, rather than decontextualized facts, started over 15 years ago (National Research Council, 1996). Still the question of how best to implement reforms has never been answered. One approach is to make inquiry practice more visible. In order to achieve this, experienced practitioners must be willing to share their approaches. In this study, the exact nature of the participants’ understanding of inquiry was probably less important than how they articulated their use of inquiry and how that use changed over time. The participants indicated that they needed to experience inquiry to use inquiry and that the more they used it the better they became at it. This tended to support the use of exemplar videos to facilitate inquiry-based teaching. Videos could provide one more avenue for educators to see and hear examples of inquiry in a classroom, a fact that the participants in the study noted. However, the videos are a passive means of experience, whereas the participants making the videos had an active experience. As such, the videos themselves should be thought of as a first step of a reinforcement of professional development in inquiry-based teaching, not as a replacement for authentic inquiry experiences. However, as making the videos was itself a powerful agent of change, the use of video to showcase, rather than critique, educational practice is an avenue of professional development that warrants further exploration. Participants in this study found several sources of motivation in terms of sharing their practice. They elucidated a desire to help create resources that would show examples of inquiry-based math and science teaching, resources that they would have found useful themselves. Having become experienced users of inquiry-based instruction, they recognized that their biggest initial struggles were overcoming their uncertainty in terms of how an inquiry-based math or science lesson proceeded, that is what the students did and what the teacher should be doing. Having learned the secret, they wanted to pass it on to others. This was in line with research by Borko et al. (2008) who used videos as a tool for professional development in math education. They found that professional development could be “empowering” and that when educators had a good experience they wanted to share it (p. 434).

373

Video Exemplars

The implications of the self-fueling nature of professional development on the potential for an increase in shared practice (either through the creation of more videos or through other means) were profound. Experiences with inquiry-based education in their own lives made the participants want to create an inquiry-based education for their students and encourage others to do so as well. In terms of the EPISMI project, if participants had a good experience, they might agree to film more exemplars or encourage colleagues to do so. In the case of one participant, the production of more video has already been noted. In this way, communities of practice grow. Overall the participants’ discussion of the videos focused on the benefits to other people. Largely any potential personal benefits they identified were just that, personal. The codes did not necessarily follow a set pattern outside of a chance for participants to increase their leadership roles within their professional communities. In terms of motivation, any personal benefit seemed to be of secondary importance. This made sense, as the making of the videos did not come without sacrifice in terms of both time devoted to the project and the discomfort of being filmed. The fact that educators were willing to participate despite largely not enjoying the prospect of being filmed spoke volumes and further stressed the importance of this good first experience. The potential benefit of the videos was considered substantial, although participants were unsure of the degree to which they would actually be used. They suggested the videos be used in professional development workshops and with pre-service educators. In terms of increasing inquiry practices as a whole, participant responses indicated the need to think deeply about dissemination possibilities. Potentially the biggest impact could come from incorporating the videos in undergraduate science and math pedagogy courses. Use of video has already been shown to help undergraduate education majors connect learning theory and practice (Moreno & OrteganoLayne, 2008). A more creative use could also be in undergraduate science and math content courses designed for education majors. Used in this way, they might help pre-service teachers make connections between their science and math content courses and their science and math pedagogy courses.

Avenues for Future Research This study is part of the continuing evaluation of EPISMI. Assessment of the videos as professional development for educators at all levels, including pre-service, is in the early stages. While initial observations by the

374

MICHELLE R. EDGCOMB ET AL.

researchers indicated that novice users of inquiry gain valuable insights into the inquiry process as well as the structure of an inquiry-based classroom, data collection is just beginning. Further consideration of the dissemination process and the best way to include widespread school districts in the data collection process is on-going. Additionally, this study focused solely on highlighting elements of inquiry as showcased by exemplary educators. Incorporating video of typical practice to enhance discussion of how to transform teaching could expand the project.

REFERENCES Abramson, L. (2007). Sputnik left legacy for U.S. science education. Retrieved from http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14829195. Accessed on July 14, 2008. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417 436. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32 42. Business-Higher Education Forum. (2003). Building a nation of learners. Retrieved from: http://www.bhef.com/sites/g/files/g829556/f/report_2003_building_a_nation.pdf Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, 4 15. Cobb, P., McClain, K., deSiva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32, 13 24. Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry. (2014). About the institute. Retrieved from http://www. exploratorium.edu/ifi/about/philosophy.html Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915 945. Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. W. (2012). Using cases as triggers for teachers’ thinking about practice: A comparison of responses to animations and videos. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/89606 Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2003). The new heroes of teaching. Education Week, 23, 56. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/11/05/10hiebert. h23.html Hogan, K., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2000). Teachers as inquiry learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 1 25. Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an international context: First look at PISA 2012 (NCES 2014-024). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Video Exemplars

375

Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755 777. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum (3rd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Korb, M. A., Sirola, C., & Climack, R. (2005). Promoting physical science to education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34, 42 45. McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers. The American Journal of Physics, 58(8), 734 742. Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008). Do classroom exemplars promote the application of principles in teacher education? A comparison of videos, animations, and narratives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 449 465. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Resources Center. (1997). Science for all children: A guide to improving elementary science education in your district. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nelson, G. (1999). Science literacy for all in the 21st century. Educational Leadership, 41, 14 17. Next Generation Science Standards. (2014). The Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards Obama, B. (2010). Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address Pathway. (2011). The features of inquiry learning: Theory, research, and practice. Retrieved from: http://www.pathwayuk.org.uk/uploads/9/3/2/1/9321680/_the_features_of_inquiry_ learning__theory_research_and_practice_eusubmitted.pdf Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921 958. Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual. ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-3. Retrieved from www.survey.nagps.org/ instruments/RTOP/RTOP_Reference_Manual.pdf. Accessed on July 6, 2008. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4 15. Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13 54. Rodriguez, A. J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1017. Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163 183. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zubrowski, B. (2007). An observational and planning tool for professional development in science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 861 884.

TOOLS OF ENGAGEMENT PROJECT (TOEP): ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH STRUCTURED INQUIRY AND A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY Roberta (Robin) Sullivan, Cynthia A. Tysick, Beth Pilawski, Shufang Shi Strause, Cherie van Putten and Nathan Whitley-Grassi ABSTRACT University and college students are fully immersed in a participatory, interactive, digital culture that permeates every aspect of their lives. Today’s educators must find ways to integrate educational technology into their curriculum to fully engage their students in the learning process. The difficulty for educators is vetting educational technologies for pedagogical effectiveness and devoting time to work with them prior to

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 377 392 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001019

377

378

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

classroom integration. Those responsible for creating faculty professional development training opportunities will find self-directed online learning modules coupled with a virtual learning community an effective training tool. Structured inquiry-based learning, which relies on self-direction, curiosity, and knowledge creation, serves as the framework for such professional development efforts. Faculty and staff from 10, public institutions in New York State created an inquiry-based, self-directed, learning community called Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP). The goal was to help faculty and staff identify and master Web 2.0 tools relevant to their teaching needs for integration into their skill set. Approximately 300 faculty and staff from across these 10 institutions met in a virtual environment during a four-month period to actively engage in a collegial, online community where they were encouraged by mentors and fellow participants to learn about Web 2.0 tools. Results of pre- and postsurveys and participants’ comments have shown this self-directed format to be an effective professional development training tool. The pace of TOEP and the differential teaching and learning aspect of the modules have helped faculty and staff who struggle to find the time to integrate these pervasive technologies into their teaching practice.

INTRODUCTION Current advances in educational technology have shifted online or distance teaching and learning from a static, voyeuristic experience into a multimedia rich, participatory event that continues long after the class has ended. In higher education Web 2.0 technologies, online computer applications that allow the sharing of user created content, have become a catalyst for an increased focus on the relationship between metacognition, technology, and pedagogy. As these concepts become essential in today’s distance classrooms, “[the] paradigm shift frees distance educators to explore inquiry-based learning, apprenticeship, and other approaches” (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 148). In order to facilitate these changes, university and college educators (aka faculty) need to be self-directed, lifelong learners. They must engage today’s students, who are digital natives, people who do not know a world without computers, the Internet, and digital technologies, when they themselves are digital immigrants, people born before the existence of the Internet who have become familiar with computers, the Internet, and digital technologies. Professional development for faculty

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

379

plays a critical role by training those instructors who seek to incorporate the latest technology into their teaching skill set in order to participate with their students in their learning process through Web 2.0 tools that allow them to communicate, collaborate, curate, and learn virtually. Faculty typically approach their own professional development through inquiry-based learning. They freely decide what they want to know, seek out literature to read or colleagues to interview, and begin incorporating what they’ve learned into their classroom. Unfortunately, the process by which they discover and learn about new technology and then apply them to their teaching practice can be dysfunctional. They must identify appropriate Web 2.0 technologies, review current research, receive instruction on how to use them, experiment, and receive feedback. This model is tedious, time-consuming and often overwhelming for faculty and hinders them in the inclusion of potentially beneficial teaching technologies. This dilemma inspired the development of a collaborative initiative across 10 State University of New York (SUNY) colleges and universities. The project sought to provide a web-based, on-demand, professional development training program that allowed for self-discovery but through a structured environment that included elements of peer and mentor support. The Tools of Engagement Project: On-demand Discovery Learning Professional Development (TOEP) overcame the barriers presented by traditional professional development models found in higher education institutions, which rely on self-directed inquiry or time intensive workshops with little structure or continued support. TOEP presented content via the Internet and recruited voluntary faculty in their colleagues’ learning process. The benefits of this type of collegial, participatory form of training are supported by current research: Recent research has shown that traditional face-to-face professional development is still preferred over online learning. Recent research has also shown that having a mentoring or collaborative component is important for faculty as they learn to integrate new concepts into their teaching practice (Devlin-Scherer, 2013; Shi & Morrow, 2006). Yet this traditional model of professional development faces unique implementation challenges, including developing offerings that appeal to a wide range of disciplines and topics, dealing with limited faculty availability, physical/campus location barriers, and limited training staff. One proposed solution is a hybrid version of professional development that employs face-to-face, individual and group training with on-demand, self-paced learning within a social media context (Brooks, 2010). (Sullivan et al., 2012, p. 256)

The core project goal is to expose faculty to online tools and emerging technologies in a safe and supportive environment. After faculty acquire deeper knowledge of these tools, they become more adept at embedding

380

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

them into their teaching, which is the second key goal of the project. A third goal calls for faculty to use these tools to diversify assessment of student learning beyond traditional strategies. Finally, by modeling the effective use of collaboration and communication tools integrated into their courses, faculty transfer these valuable skills to their students. TOEP is designed around the structured inquiry-based learning model to allow faculty to choose the individual tools and concepts that are most relevant to their discipline or practice and learn new skills at their own pace, at times that are convenient to them. TOEP can easily be shared and replicated by any teaching institution under a Creative Commons BY-NCSA 2.5 license. The original inspiration for TOEP stemmed from the “23 Things” project licensed through Creative Commons, which was developed as professional development for staff of the Public Library of Charlotte & Mecklenberg County by Helene Blowers. Through a combination of literature review and practical experience, TOEP creators determined the top five issues to address in the design and implementation of their new professional development model. First, was the need for a concrete definition of a Web 2.0 technology. A review of the literature solidified the definition of Web 2.0 technologies to “those that allowed individuals and groups to create content that could be viewed by others, manipulated in some fashion, and remade into a new usable product” (Anderson, 2007; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). The next issue was identifying the target population. When looking at the adoption of emerging technologies, there are three levels of adopters: early, middle, and late (Rogers, 2010). Early adopters are the innovators; they are those who consistently try new tools and discard those for which they have no use (Dooley, 1999; Kuo, Wei, Hu, & Yang, 2013). Middle adopters (mass adopters) have witnessed the success of the early adopters and have begun utilizing technologies that have been reviewed by early adopters (Aldunate & Nussbaum, 2013). Finally, late adopters tend to be cautious about using technology to teach, hesitant about using a tool incorrectly, or simply resistant to something they see as a “fad” (Hixon, Buckenmeyer, Barczyk, Feldman, & Zamojski, 2012). Ultimately, TOEP’s focus was aimed across all levels of Web 2.0 technology expertise. TOEP collaborators hoped to grow the project into an exemplary and inspirational community resource supporting adopters of every level. The third and fourth issues were choosing specific Web 2.0 technologies to incorporate and determining the best way to present the tools to the learners. Ultimately, the team chose to focus on the top Web 2.0 technologies that were most commonly being used in teaching at the time of launch:

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

381

photo sharing, audio and video, blogs and wikis, presentations, productivity tools, social bookmarking, citation management, collaborative spaces, and social media (Alexander, 2006; Anderson, 2007; Boulos, Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006; Conole & Alevizou, 2010; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). The final issue and logistical decision examined creating a virtual community of learners. TOEP is a multi-institution endeavor that does not require a physical location for training. Participants learn through the website, http://suny.edu/toep, but TOEP creators felt it was important for participants to have an avenue for sharing tool applications and discussing roadblocks to implementation. There were many different models considered, and ultimately the decision was made to utilize personal participant blogs as the online community platform. During Phase I, participants linked their personal blogs to the main TOEP website, allowing for collaboration, inspiration, and support within the online community. In Phase II, the project chose to utilize a private Google + Community for reflections and interactions between participants.

METHOD Personnel, Communications, and Recruiting Participants During Phase I (2012 2013) all co-principal investigators played an equal role in recruiting participants, creating content, providing technical support, communicating with participants, as well as gathering and analyzing the data. One lead organizer role was identified and facilitated by the grant’s principal investigator. Bi-weekly online meetings were held using the Angel Elluminate web-conferencing platform. At the conclusion of Phase I, it was determined that providing equal feedback among the coprincipal investigators hindered the project when immediate decisions needed to be made. Therefore, in Phase II (2013 2014) three major areas were identified for a team-based approach: data gathering and analysis, website content and badging, and communication and recruitment. In addition, it was determined that Phase II required an administrative team. This distributed team approach was quite different from Phase I, where online meetings were scheduled weekly or bi-weekly, and meetings attended by the whole group rather than individual teams. As the number of people involved and the reach of the project grew, meeting as a whole group became less productive. Also, not only did the size of the core leadership

382

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

team increase, but the distributed campus-based Fellows were added to assist in the implementation of Phase II, and they needed to be managed and kept informed. Communication between the TOEP teams was largely asynchronous through the use of email and Google Documents. Synchronous meetings using conferencing software were used among team members. In order minimize operating costs, no overnight or long distance trips to facilitate face-to-face TOEP meetings were held. Phone, email and web meetings through Blackboard’s Collaborate tool were the main methods of communication. A permanent “room” was created for the team’s virtual meetings. Team members were able to communicate via audio-video, text chat, and screen sharing. The project also utilized: 1. File sharing: All files were place in a shared folder in Google Drive. This shared access allowed anyone on the team to see the files and edit the ones appropriate to their role. 2. Website creation: The entire website was created using Google Sites, which enabled the collaborators to view draft pages and edit pages by signing in with a Google ID and password. Google Sites requires no special download or paid license, and the visual editor is very user-friendly. Additionally, permissions can be limited to those team members with content creation and editing responsibilities. 3. Badging: When participants completed a “Discovery Activity,” they applied for a digital badge, an electronic indicator of skill achievement similar in concept to badges offered in scouting. The team manually awarding badges using the free badging service Credly. The advantages of this service were flexibility in badge design and management, but the downside was the need to manually award each badge. 4. Social networking: A Google + social networking community was used as the communication channel for participants to share experiences in Phase II. The goals of this community were to both share learning experiences and support others as they explore TOEP resources. This learning community created an environment where participants were jointly vested in each other’s progress.

Recruiting Participants During Phase I participants were recruited across the fives participating campuses through email listserv announcements, posters, and 3x5 postcards.

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

383

Many of the TOEP team relied on person-to-person network to spread the word about the grant-funded project and the incentives being offered (iTunes gift cards and funding towards future professional development). A PowerPoint presentation was shared with team members that some used during departmental, staff meetings. Given the expanded nature of Phase II, now up from 5 to 10 participating campuses, a member of the team was designated as Communication Officer and charged with creating and disseminating posters, emails, fliers, postcards, updating the PowerPoint presentation, and accepting participant registration into the TOEP project and Google + Community. The pool of eligible participants was expanded to not only include teaching faculty but also graduate students and instructional support staff who held a teaching role on their campus. Website and Discovery Activities The TOEP website is located at http://suny.edu/toep. Tabs across the top of the screen allow visitors to navigate within the site. Prior to registering, visitors can read more about the project by clicking the FAQs tab to obtain more information about the project. Visitors also have access to the “Discovery Activities” section on the left side of the page. Visitors who wish to enroll in TOEP click the “Register” tab to register. Once registered, they become project participants and were requested to join the Google + Community (Fig. 1). In Phase I, participants were encouraged to complete a discovery activity as a Lifelong Learning reflection piece. This changed in Phase II when it was decided that the project needed to move toward more self-directed model learning. Participants needed some structure but they also needed to let their own inquiry drive their learning process. Therefore, participants were encouraged to complete at least three discovery activities of their choosing, as well as the “Lifelong Learning” and then conclude by reflecting on their experience through a “Summarize Your Thoughts” activity. Each “Discovery Activity” within each Web 2.0 tool topic is structured as follows: (1) Overview. A brief introduction and a section on applying that type of tool in a learning environment to enhance learning. The first section of each discovery activity is an overview of the tool. It introduces what the tool can do, why the tool is useful for teaching and/or learning, and provides links to websites that further discusses the tools from an educational perspective.

384

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

Fig. 1. Tools of Engagement Project Website. Access to the learning modules or “Discovery Activities” is through an open, fully accessible website, http://suny.edu/ toep. Participants choose to either begin the learning process on their own by exploring any or all of the discovery activities (far left) or they can sign up to receive peer support and earn digital badges of completion by selecting the register tab (top left).

(2) Discovery resources. This section introduces a sampling of well vetted products for participants to try. Discovery resources highlight tools one could use for a given educational need. For example, if one was in the “Productivity Tools” discover activity and they wanted to know what productivity tools might be worth their time exploring they would select from a list of two or three specific, free tools listed in this section. (3) Discovery exercise. This section includes: (a) Interaction with the Introduction and Discovery Resources (b) Posting a reflection in the Google + Community (c) Requesting a badge The discovery exercise is where the participant can choose to complete an activity using one of the tools highlighted. It must be used in an educational manner consistent with the goal of integrating the tool into their teaching. Once they’ve completed the activity they will share

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

385

their experience through the Google+ Community where they receive peer and mentor feedback. This area of the discovery activity is also where, once completed, they may choose to request a digital badge of completion. (4) What does the research say? This section contains citations and/or links to scholarly articles that detail the application of the tool. In this section participants are given concrete, research-based examples of the Web 2.0 tool in an educational setting. Examples range from K-12 (secondary/post-secondary) and higher education. An ongoing, shared library of educational technology research has been created by TOEP and is accessible from each discovery activity and the website’s homepage. (5) Resource libraries. Participants were able to explore entries and add their own links to two resource libraries. (6) Google + Community. The community is where those who wished to could discuss the tools they had tried and comment on other participants’ experiences. The community was a safe space to freely share one’s triumphs and frustrations with Web 2.0 tools. This learning community resulted in significant social networking among faculty from a variety of sizes and types of campuses, ranging from community colleges to research university centers. The community was a voluntary portion of the learning experience that allowed colleagues to share their successes, failures, and frustrations about Web 2.0 tools introduced to them in TOEP. Throughout the four-month training period participants would post examples of how they used the tools they chose to explore. Some also included other examples of tool integration they had found or the latest research/news about a given Web 2.0 tool they were interested in.

Badging and Incentives A new feature in Phase II was the inclusion of badging for participants. The team decided to integrate badging into Phase II in the hopes that it would help participants track their progress, provide an incentive for completing the discovery learning activities, and help track the most popular Web 2.0 topics. Ultimately, the badges worked well to assist participants in tracking their individual participation and providing motivation to complete the discovery learning activities and Google + Community reflections. They also allowed the team to track the completion rates of each participant and identify which badges were earned.

386

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

In a recent case study published by EDUCAUSE, a digital badge is defined as a symbol or indicator of an accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest (Knight & Casili, 2012). Although a badge earner sees only a badge image, a digital badge is actually comprised of several parts, including the badge image (what the badge earner sees), the user’s personal information (this makes the badge unique to the user), and the evidence (a permanent connection to the accomplishment of the badge earner: this is hosted by the issuer of the badge). This combination ensures that each badge is unique and a true representation of an earner’s accomplishment. Most badges are issued in an open badge format, meaning they can be transferred across different systems. Initially, the team explored the development of a Google Badging Widget to automatically issue badges, but ran into a number of programming issues that led to inconsistent results. Though manually issuing and managing badges can be a daunting task, it was determined to be an appropriate solution. The badging team adopted Credly as the manual badge generator for Phase II. TOEP offered three types of badges: Quest, Mastery, and Community Badges. Quest badges are awarded for the completion of learning activities within the learning space. Quest badges are used to represent the completion of Discovery Learning Activities. Mastery badges were awarded after completing the Lifelong Learning Discovery Activity plus three other discovery activities of the individual’s choosing and summarizing their thoughts and experiences in a posting to the Google + Community. Community badges were awarded through a peer-review process of participants and included a badge for pedagogically intriguing use of a tool as evidenced through postings to the Community, a personal progress badge, and a peer mentoring and support badge (Fig. 2).

RESULTS Based on a preliminary review of the data, the following conclusions have been identified.

Registered Users The core project goals were to guide instructors to emerging Web 2.0 technologies that they could learn about, experiment with, and eventually

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

387

Fig. 2. Tools of Engagement Badges. Each badge was unique in design and reflected the type of Web 2.0 tool that was mastered. The badges, administered through Credly, http://credly.com, can be saved in a participant’s personal “backpack” at Mozilla Backpack, http://backpack.openbadges.org.

388

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

master through physical or virtual classroom integration. As a result of this course integration students would become more engaged in the learning process and master a technology that would benefit their professional life. While an analysis of survey data is not available at this time the project did expanded the participating SUNY campuses from 5 in Phase I to 10 in Phase II. The project also saw a dramatic increase in the number of participants with 127 registered users in Phase I versus 326 registered users in Phase II. This represents a 250% increase in participation as well as an increase in student reach for faculty experimenting with their newly acquired educational technology skills.

Website Traffic During the six months of Phase II analytics revealed that TOEP saw significant traffic, logging more than 21,000 page views during that period. Visitors averaged 3.18 page views per session. With more than 3,000 unique users, the site had a much larger impact than just the number of registered participants. There were likely a large number of users who were “lurkers,” exploring the tools and pages without taking part in the social elements of the project. These users should also be considered in the broader impact and reach of TOEP. The site also saw a higher-than-expected mobile and tablet web traffic (>10%). This has prompted discussion about the development of more mobile friendly pages and tools for future iterations of the project. At the same time the Google + Community included more than 200 active faculty and staff from the 10 participating institutions.

Community In Phase I participants used individual blogs to chronicle their experiences with the project. This allowed them to share deep and specific information about their individual growth and learning over the three month period. As participants commented on each other’s blog postings the TOEP team envisioned the activity as a way to build a learning community that included peer mentoring. After an end-of-year review of Phase I, the personal blog method was deemed ineffective. Though participants were adept at posting to their own blogs, they generally did not read the postings of others. This resulted in minimal peer mentoring occurring within the blog reflections. In Phase II, the TOEP team elected to migrate the learning community

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

389

activities to a closed Google + Community. The closed Google + Community was ultimately found to be more effective in creating enthusiasm about particular tools and pedagogical innovations. The involvement among the community of learners expanded positively and there was clear evidence of organic peer mentoring (Kibaru & Njoroge, 2013; Zepeda, 2011). In relation to the core goals of faculty acquiring deeper knowledge about Web 2.0 tools and becoming more adept at embedding these skills into their teaching, Phase II achieved success via personal reflection and community sharing and development of teaching strategies and techniques. Significantly more interaction and discussion between participants took place in the Google + Community as compared to Phase I community discussions. This may be due to Phase I relying on a blogging platform where a participant would need to enter another’s blog in order to comment. It may also be attributed to the nature of social-networked communities and the increased familiarity with the use of social networks such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The proximity of seeing other people’s posts as one added their own reflections may have also caused the Google + Community conversations to be more interactive. By removing the need for extra clicks to view other participant’s posts (as existed in Phase I), conversations took on the tone of a social-network community. Many participants commented that they appreciated the community aspect and the ability to receive support through their peers. Mentoring support and coaching was provided by the TOEP group members and Fellows who were available within the social-network community that developed. This community was perceived as a safe and supportive learning community where members gained a comfort level in dealing with change accumulated through being able to explore, experiment, and make mistakes.

Completion Rates In addition to an increase in the number of posts seen in the Google + Community in Phase II, the audience of each post was much larger, representing a marked increase in participant completions between Phase I and Phase II. It is important to note that the definition of “Completion” changed from Phase I to Phase II, as described earlier. In Phase I, eight total participants completed all of the required activities and reports. Phase II saw a 525% increase in completion rate with approximately 50 completers.

390

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

Badging and Incentives Badges were not a part of Phase I; however, during Phase II TOEP awarded 426 individual badges to its participants. The most popular Quest badges were the Presentations (14% of the overall Quest badge total) and the Audio/Video (13% of the overall Quest badge total) topic badges. This is a reflection of the most popular TOEP Web 2.0 topics with participants. As of June 6, 2014, the badge activity for TOEP-issued badges surpassed 11,000 individual interactions (an interaction is defined as accepting a badge, linking a badge, clicking on a badge to view its credentials, etc.). Of those participants who chose to link their TOEP badges to social networking sites, 89% were linked to Linkedin, while the remaining 11% were linked on Facebook. These badges allow the badge earners to display their micro-credentials publically and in areas that may benefit them professionally or educationally. They also allow for the sharing of the TOEP resources and public exposure of the project and its participants via social networking sites. The implications of badging are far-reaching, and though Phase II just brushed the surface of badging, TOEP hopes to continue to explore the streamlining and integration of badges in future iterations of the project.

CONCLUSION During each phase of TOEP the use of monetary incentives, iTunes gift cards and credit toward future professional development workshops or events, has been relatively modest in scope ($1,000 total for Phase I and $9,000 total for Phase II). What impact the monetary awards had on participant rates and completion rates is unanswered. A relatively small number of participants completed Phase I (6%) and Phase II (15%) to become eligible for monetary awards. However, of the 330 Phase II participants 30% earned a badge for completing a discovery activity. Since completion rates were higher for non-monetary rewards one can conclude that incentivizing professional development activities take little to no additional expense, creating an achievement recognition program would suffice. The underlying premise of TOEP is that while educators gravitate toward an inquiry-based learning model for their professional development, when it comes to learning and integrating the vast array of Web 2.0 educational technologies they benefit from a structured approach that

Tools of Engagement Project (TOEP)

391

offers choices to their learning path and reviews the technologies for teaching effectiveness. Combining structured inquiry-based learning with social networking, achievement awards, and peer mentoring empowers educators to acquire expertise in these technologies so they are better equipped to engage today’s students in their learning journey. This unique, on-demand, professional development model provides a low-cost template to those responsible for training educators that can be replicated at any institutional level be it universities, schools, or colleges.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Tools of Engagement Project was funded through grants from the State University of New York. The project was twice awarded an Innovative Instruction Technology Grant, $10,000 in 2012 and $60,000 in 2013.

REFERENCES Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 519 524. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? A report commissioned by JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139 153. Boulos, M. N., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(1), 41. Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. Devlin-Scherer, R., & Sardone, N. B. (2013). Collaboration as a form of professional development: Improving learning for faculty and students. College Teaching, 61(1), 30–37. Dooley, K. E. (1999). Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: An integrative review of educational innovation studies. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), 35 45. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246 259. Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 102 107.

392

ROBERTA (ROBIN) SULLIVAN ET AL.

Kibaru, F., & Njoroge, R. (2013). Exploring the feasibility of a web-based learning community system for professional development of e-learning faculty in the context of higher education in Kenya. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. 627 630). Knight, E., & Casili, C. (2012). Case study 6: Mozilla open badges. Kuo, L. H., Wei, H. M., Hu, W. C., & Yang, H. J. (2013). Applying innovation theory in observing emerging technology acceptance. Innovation, 4, 5. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664 675). Rogers, E. (2010). Diffusion of innovation. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Shi, S., & Morrow, B. V. (2006). E-conferencing for instruction: What works? Educause quarterly, 29(4), 42. Sullivan, R. R., Burns, B., Gradel, K., Shi, S., Tysick, C., & Van Putten, C. (2012). Tools of engagement project: On-demand discovery learning professional development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(3), 255–266. Zepeda, S. J. (2011). Professional development: What works. London: Routledge.

LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: USING INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING FOR STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMMING Paige E. Sindt and James M. Lucas ABSTRACT Social and technological changes of the 21st century influence how and what students learn while in college. New research about student learning suggests a critical need for higher education to reform teaching and learning methods. Experiential and inquiry-based learning (IBL) are essential to engaging students and achieving the type of learning demanded by today’s global workforce. These skills include critical analysis, systems thinking, problem-solving, and spanning cultural and disciplinary boundaries. For decades, international educators purported that education abroad provided these skills for participants, yet recent research suggests that the same factors inhibiting deep learning on campus can also affect global, experiential environments. No longer can faculty members assume that students will learn from experience alone; they must intentionally construct activities accounting for the specific characteristics and needs of learners. This chapter outlines trends influencing student learning, making the case that traditional, content-based, directed instruction is poorly suited for student learning in the 21st

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 393 420 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001020

393

394

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

century. The authors suggest that applying experiential and inquirybased practices is essential to constructing effective education abroad program. Case studies, strategies, tools, and resources are provided to assist faculty with developing competencies to teach through an experiential and inquiry-based pedagogical framework.

INTRODUCTION Several trends have converged to influence the need for curricular reform and the development of new teaching and learning strategies in U.S. higher education. Changing student demographics, shifting workforce needs, and globalization are demanding institutions to redefine the curriculum in terms of the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed for today’s global workplace (Augustine, 2013; Deardorff, 2004; Kirkwood, 2001). Evidence also suggests that modern social and technological patterns are changing students’ cognitive and social development (Brockman, 2011; Carr, 2011). Finally, calls for accountability from the public, accreditation agencies, and federal and state government in the United States have placed a heightened responsibility upon institutions to evidence student learning and workforce readiness (Association of American Colleges, Universities, & National Leadership Council (US) [AAC & U/NLC], 2007). Although seemingly disparate issues, these trends are major drivers for change within U.S. higher education requiring faculty and staff to reconsider the current approaches to learning in the 21st century. In response to these trends, many institutions are seeking to find better ways to engage and prepare students. Research demonstrates that students who are more engaged in their college’s co-curriculum are more likely to succeed academically (Astin, 1999; Kuh, 2008; Kuh & Pike, 2005). Kuh (2008) identified several specific program models that deepen student engagement as “high-impact practices” (HIPs), including livinglearning programs, service learning and civic engagement, undergraduate research, and education abroad. Study abroad is one HIP that has gained attention as an important method for providing students with intercultural, academic, and interpersonal growth; however, recent research questions the actual value it provides students (Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012). Historically, U.S. education abroad programs focused on language and cultural learning for undergraduates studying a semester or longer at an

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

395

international institution. Today, the growth in study abroad participation is in short-term programs experiences less than eight weeks that are typically comprised of students from a single U.S. institution and taught by a faculty member from that same institution. These programs enroll 58.9% of all U.S. education abroad students (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2013). Critics cite concerns that these programs are not deeply engaged with the host culture and faculty leaders may lack the intercultural and student development knowledge to effectively support student learning abroad (Dwyer, 2004; Fischer, 2009; Woolf, 2007). To embrace the changing trends in study abroad and address concerns, international educators are approaching program design with more intention to ensure that the espoused learning outcomes are achieved, acknowledging that student learning will not occur simply by chance (Vande Berg et al., 2012). Furthermore, research suggests that faculty and staff leaders need to employ active, inquiry-based pedagogies that require students to deliberately engage with the host culture in more meaningful ways (Montrose, 2002; Steinberg, 2002). The fact that training faculty and staff to develop and lead programs in this manner will help education abroad clearly demonstrates that it can provide the transformative, life-changing experience often guaranteed in its promotional literature. This chapter examines drivers of change impacting learning and workforce development in more detail and connects them to the use of education abroad as a HIP to advance higher education goals through intentional curricular design, faculty development, and innovative teaching. Although already experiential in nature, education abroad can improve by adopting constructivist pedagogy and inquiry-based practices. Understanding these tools and practices helps faculty and staff develop a broader understanding of students’ needs, leading to the creation of more effective, cultural learning environments that subsequently improve student competence.

TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION As the world becomes more interconnected economically, socially, and technologically, students need the cognitive, affective, and behavioral abilities to cross-cultural boundaries and work with diverse individuals. According to reports by the British Council (2013) and AAC & U/NLC (2007), employers want graduates who can understand and work across cultures. Education abroad helps students acquire global knowledge and

396

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

shift intercultural perspectives to interact appropriately in other cultural contexts (Vande Berg et al., 2012). In addition to intercultural ability, the required skills are changing. A study conducted by the Lumina Foundation (2012) states that more than 900,000 workers with university-level education are needed to meet workforce demands in the next decade. Another study by Michigan State University and IBM demonstrates that students entering today’s workplace are expected to have more advanced skills than previous generations. The expectations of the average “first job out of college” today more closely reflect what used to be a “second job out of college” in the past (Avon, 2010; CERI, 2013a; Gardner, Chao, & Hurst, 2008). U.S. employers want “T-shaped workers” (CERI, 2013b; Smithgroup JJR, 2013): individuals with a depth of knowledge in their field of study, but also a breadth of ability to understand how their work connects with other fields (see Fig. 1). Producing students with these skills means redesigning the physical environment in which learning occurs and also fundamentally changing the relationship between teacher and student, to one in which faculty assumes more of a facilitative role, transitioning from the long-held role of the expert “sage on the stage” (Barr & Tagg, 1995).

Boundary-crossing competencies Communication, teamwork, perspective Networks, critical thinking, global, understanding

Organizational culture, project management, etc

Many disciplines

Many systems (Understanding and communications)

(Understanding and communications)

Deep in at least one system

(analytic thinking and problem solving)

Deep in at least one discipline

(analytic thinking and problem solving)

Fig. 1.

T-Shaped Professionals (Spohrer & Maglio, 2010).

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

397

Producing students who understand cultural interactions and have deep critical thinking and problem-solving skills requires curricular reform and changing the way faculty teach. Faculty must expose students to more experiential and inquiry-based practices requiring them to move beyond memorizing facts and figures, which evidence suggests they are unlikely to retain (Fink, 2003). Students must interact with information in meaningful ways and apply the academic content to real-world situations and problems. This practice in the application and integration of information to new contexts will enhance global competence and workforce readiness; however, the nature of technology and characteristics of today’s college student make achieving these goals difficult. According to Levine and Dean (2012), today’s “post-millennial” students, those individuals entering college following the 2008 global financial collapse (GFC), are different from previous generations. Similar to the previous generation of “Millennials,”1 technology has mediated their lives and society has sheltered them from adversity. As a result, face-toface interactions can challenge post-millennials, as can complex problemsolving and failure. Evidence suggests this cohort is less able to make decisions without support from an adult and is more conservative and utilitarian in their decision-making regarding money and work (Levine & Dean, 2012). In recent decades, U.S. college students have demonstrated a delay into adulthood, rather exploring their emerging adulthood2 identities during ages 18 25 (Arnett, 2000), shifting needs and demands for college faculty and administrators. Today, post-millennials bring new attitudes and demands as a result of the GFC. Students in college today have witnessed a changing economic and work landscape, many experienced impact from the GFC directly and as a result, they are concerned about their economic future and mobility, and less reflective or concerned about the betterment of society. Students today also bring more egalitarian attitudes and are attentive to fairness, a result of growing up in environments with zerotolerance policies with regard to discrimination and mistreatment (Levine & Dean, 2012; Vaccaro, 2014). In addition to the GFC, advances in neuroscience suggest that technology is also a mediating force related to how students behave (Carr, 2011). According to Carr, the way the web presents content and the constant sense of being connected and multi-tasking that technology provides changes the way people read and process information. For students, this means they are skimming information for content knowledge, not thinking critically about content; therefore, only achieving a surface-level of

398

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

understanding that is not imprinting deeply in their brains. Carr describes this situation in his book: What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. Whether I’m online or not, my mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski. (p. 5)

This means students are less able to deeply analyze and apply information they learn across contexts (Carr), a critical skill employers demand and is needed for the betterment of society (AAC, & U/NLC, 2007; Humphreys, 2013). In this era of instant access to information, students are even more in need of educational experiences requiring them to critically evaluate ideas and apply knowledge and theory to action. To accomplish this task, a shift needs to occur in the curriculum and the way educators present material to students. If the demands of the workplace and social imperatives are not convincing incentives for reform, the requirements of accreditation and accountability also demand action. In the United States, there is an intense focus upon educational achievement factors such as retention and persistence, time to graduation, degree completion, and achievement statistics by demographic characteristic. These factors all implicate it is time for institutions committed to student learning and liberal education to respond and reform to transform classrooms from places of passivity and knowledge transfer to places of active inquiry, analysis, and creativity.

ENSURING QUALITY: EDUCATION ABROAD AS A HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICE Kuh (2008) defined several HIPs that help advance student engagement and learning in college. These practices include opportunities such as livinglearning programs, service learning and civic engagement, undergraduate research, and education abroad. According to Kuh, students who participate in such activities feel more connected to the institution; therefore, they have higher rates of achievement. For example, a student who feels more connected at school may be more willing to seek out academic support or tutoring if needed, rather than dropping a class or leaving the institution when experiencing difficulty. HIPs also lead to deeper levels of student learning, leading to better analysis and problem-solving skills (Kuh).

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

399

In many ways, education abroad is well-situated to address the concerns raised earlier in this chapter about student knowledge, skills, and attitudes and the cited ability gaps from employer perspectives. Although other campus programs, such as interaction with international students, community engagement, undergraduate research, or language instruction can improve students’ analytical thinking, cultural knowledge, and personal growth, research shows the disorientation of international experience the combination of skills that it requires to live and learn in a different culture produces significant learning beyond what can occur domestically (Deardorff, 2006; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Sell, 1983; Sindt, 2007). Education abroad also exposes students to global ideas and new perspectives alternative ways of framing, defining, and resolving problems, which can lead to more holistic, integrated thinking (Dwyer, 2004; Fischer, 2009; Ogden, 2010). Specifically, international learning experiences can expand students’ competence in three major domains. First, study abroad provides students with opportunities to consider issues from an applied, systems perspective. Garraty, Kemperer, and Taylor (1981) and Kauffmann, Martin, and Weaver (1992) indicate that study abroad expands development of these important cognitive and inquiry-based skills. They believe that learning occurs best in a relevant context, and research demonstrates that studying abroad increases understanding and retention of language abilities and content knowledge as related to one’s major or career goals (Carlson, Burn, Useem, & Yachimowicz, 1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Opper, Teichler, & Carlson, 1990) by providing an experiential context (Dewey, 1963; Kolb, 1984; Passarelli & Kolb, 2012). For example, students in economic policy may gain a better understanding of socialist policies by visiting Cuba or China to explore policies and their impact firsthand. In addition, Carlson et al. indicated that students who study abroad demonstrate increased ability to integrate concepts from other disciplines into their thinking, so as an example, computer science students might gain an appreciation for cultural factors influencing design, information flow, and color skills beyond basic programming. Second, study abroad provides students with an opportunity to engage with diverse cultures. Numerous studies show improvement in students’ intercultural sensitivity including: interest in global issues, ability to interpret ideas from different perspectives, and ability to have empathy and relate to difference (Carlson et al., 1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffmann et al., 1992; Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo, 2004; Opper et al., 1990; Savicki, 2008; Sell, 1983). Researchers believe home-host culture comparisons help students gain a

400

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

better appreciation of both home and host cultures by expanding their overall understanding of the world in a broader context (Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Kauffmann et al., 1992; Kirkwood, 2001; Sell, 1983; Sindt, 2007). These researchers also suggest that students begin to question their native culture as they interact with the new ideas, lifestyles, and norms from the host culture (Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Kauffmann et al., 1992). Ingraham and Peterson’s (2004) study showed that of all the outcome domains, intercultural development increased the most, regardless of program length or structure. Third, study abroad allows for personal growth and development, which includes students’ confidence, maturity and self-reliance, ability to work with others, ability to clarify values, and willingness to accept new ideas (Carlson et al., 1990; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffmann et al., 1992; Opper et al., 1990; Sindt, 2007). Navigating life in a foreign culture necessarily challenges students on a daily basis, requiring them to find new ways of performing typically simple tasks such as asking for directions, doing laundry, or grocery shopping. If they can successfully live in their new environment, they achieve a greater sense of confidence, independence, and self-esteem (Garraty et al., 1981; Sindt, 2007), making them more successful on campus (Barclay Hamir, 2011). Dwyer and Peters (2004) reported a 98% increase in students’ self-confidence after one year abroad. Like any educational endeavor and perhaps more importantly given the financial costs education abroad must move beyond the assumption that learning simply occurs as a result of being abroad. Critics state that to achieve stated learning outcomes, instructors must more intentionally construct programs to help students think critically and engage interculturally (Steinberg, 2002; Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009). Critics also question if short-term programs lead to the transformational learning often cited by institutions (Dwyer, 2004; Fischer, 2009; Vande Berg et al., 2012; Woolf, 2007) because students spend less time interacting with the host culture and are less independent than on other types of programs. Faculty and students must also “become conscious of and explicit about their teaching and learning assumptions” as research demonstrates student learning is most effective with ongoing and strategic interventions (Vande Berg et al., 2009, p. 19). Researchers question students’ self-reported claims of their learning and the overall quality of the student experience, stating that the concept of student transformation while abroad is a common myth (Vande Berg et al., 2012; Woolf, 2007). Instead of truly learning or changing, research suggests

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

401

students respond to prompts with cliche´s about their experiences and provide information they think faculty want; in other words, they fake it or don’t tell the truth a concept known as “social desirability bias” (Clegg & Bufton, 2008; Hobbs, 2007; Vande Berg et al., 2009; Vande Berg et al., 2012). Passarelli and Kolb (2012) and Roark and Norling (2010) question whether traditional forms of experiential learning work in an academic setting. Traditionally, educators have assumed that learning emerged over a period of time from student experiences abroad, yet today’s students are spending less time overseas and are seemingly less able to make sense of their experiences independently after the program (Clegg & Bufton, 2008; Levine & Dean, 2012; Paige & Fry, 2010). Educators cannot assume that learning emerges or happens by chance just by virtue of traveling (Vande Berg et al., 2012), so they must construct what Krumboltz (2009) calls planned happenstance. Planned happenstance states that faculty and staff cannot prepare students in every eventuality that may occur while abroad, but, if given the transferrable skills to identify, process, and respond to issues as they arise, students will be better equipped for learning in new environments. This idea is supported by a research study by Passarelli and Kolb (2012), which suggests that although instructors tend to focus on the experiential and reflection aspects of Kolb’s (1984) learning style model (see Fig. 2), students

Fig. 2.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984).

402

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

tend to be more focused on the conceptualization and experimentation quadrants. Furthermore, research by Roark and Norling (2010) suggests that in a formal academic setting, starting with experience can be too abstract. For example, if a faculty member takes a student to a wetland to observe an ecological process, but he or she does not prepare the student for such a visit, the student will most likely not know what to observe, what questions to ask, or what ideas to take away from the experience. To make experiential learning viable, especially when there are specific educational outcomes to achieve, faculty and staff need to ensure that they carefully construct the learning process before, during, and after the experience. As suggested by Case Study 1, instructors need to help students learn to explore and question their world (Sanford, 1967), but these instructors also need to check on students’ understandings to assess that the program led to the espoused learning outcomes (Fink, 2003; Montrose, 2002).

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND STUDY ABROAD Student development theories emerged from a wide-range of philosophical perspectives and offer key insights about students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral growth (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2009). Student learning and development refers to “the ways that a student grows, progresses, or increases his or her developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an institution of higher education” (Evans et al., 2009, p. 27) and categorizes the body of theory and research on adolescent and adult development. This body of literature enables educators to better understand the connections between students and the learning process. Understanding theory also offers description, explanation, prediction, and (sometimes) control (DiCaprio, 1974; Evans et al., 2009). To design effective teaching methods, there must be a clear understanding of who is being taught who are our students and what are the needs and characteristics of learners today? To become familiar with students today, an exploration of student learning and development helps frame the conversation. It also confirms the idea that current teaching and learning methods do not work for modern students (Levine & Dean, 2012). According to Kaplan, Silver, Lavaque-Manty, and Meizlish (2013):

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

Case Study 1

403

The Power and Pitfalls of Inquiry-Based Learning.

While in the Cobh Heritage Centre near Cork, Ireland during a short-term education abroad program, two first-year students approached their instructor and asked “what is the Irish Potato Famine?” As the group was currently standing in the Irish Potato Famine exhibit, the instructor suggested that they look around the room and try to figure it out for themselves. After the visit, the instructor followed up with the two students asked them if they had found their answer, to which they responded “yes.” When reading their reflection paper based on the visit, the instructor was shocked to find that both students stated the following in their papers, “I am surprised to see so many Irish people still eating potatoes after eating potatoes gave so many Irish the Potato Famine disease.” Although the reflection assignment allowed the instructor to clear up the students’ misconceptions, the situation made her rethink how students approach experiential learning. Discussion questions: 1. What are some possible reasons for why the students took away the wrong ideas from the museum exhibit? 2. How would you advise this instructor for the future? Would you alter the class in any way? 3. What does this case study suggest in terms of instructors’ assumptions and expectations of college students?

Faculty have always wanted to teach well, wanted their students to learn and succeed, but for a very long time faculty have taught as they were taught … when a much larger and more diverse population began enrolling, the limits of traditional teaching emerged more sharply. (p. ix)

Similarly, Davis and Arend state that across the curriculum, “students don’t appear to be learning what they need to know for life in the 21st century” (2013, p. xv). Today’s workplace and global society requires students to be flexible in learning, unlearning, and seeking new knowledge. To accomplish these endeavors, learners must understand how to process information and think about their own thought patterns, and develop a natural curiosity about learning new information. These traits characterize the necessary qualities to develop self-regulated, inquiry-driven learners.

404

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

Student development theories provide a framework to help faculty members understand how to accomplish these goals. Although many theories exist, theories are typically grouped into the following categories: (1) Psychosocial and social identity development These theories focus on students’ thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and values and how students relate to oneself, peers, communities, and the world. These theories are commonly discussed in terms of students’ intrapersonal (self) and interpersonal (other) knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Chickering and Reisser (1993) provide a common identity development framework that has been expanded upon in recent years with consideration for an increasingly diverse student population (Evans et al., 2009). (2) Cognitive-structural development This research area examines how and why people learn and illuminates changes in the way individuals think. Theories emphasize differences between learners and learning environments such as race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, and environment factors. Perry (1970) is a foundational theorist in cognitive development, who established steps that describe movement from simplistic, categorical understanding of information to a more sophisticated understanding. (3) Integrative theories Newer theories on student and identity development take a holistic approach to understanding students by combining aspects of cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal development. Baxter Magolda’s (2004) theory of self-authorship is an integrative theory example. (4) Learning and typological theory These theories examine individual and stylistic differences in how students approach learning and process information and relate to the world. Learning models, such as Kolb’s experiential learning (1984) is an example of typological theory. Beyond understanding the learners entering classrooms today, it is also important to understand the process of learning that students experience to develop strategies to get students to think about their own learning, a concept known as metacognition (Kaplan et al., 2013; Veenman, Van HoutWolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). This refers to the reflective process during which one thinks about how information is acquired and processed. Metacognition combines what is known about student learning and development with neuroscience research about how learning occurs and varies between individuals. Understanding metacognition enables educators to shift away from the “pedagogy of telling” (Davis & Arend, 2013, p. 5), moving beyond paradigms for instruction-centered classrooms, rather,

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

405

transitioning to student and learning-centered educational models (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Davis & Arend, 2013; Kaplan et al., 2013). Moving into a learner-centered framework reframes learning and introduces new tools for the classroom. During education abroad, students’ personal and academic lives intersect, and faculty members can use theory to better explain and predict students’ reactions and craft interventions to help enhance learning, while controlling potential misunderstandings.

USING EXPERIENTIAL AND INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING TO REFRAME EDUCATION ABROAD Best practices for curricular development suggest using a system of backward design that establishes clear learning outcomes and assessment techniques before deciding on the actual readings, lectures, and activities (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Wiggins and McTighe provide an outline of three main steps to design a course. First, instructors should establish a set of desired outcomes for student learning, or “what should the student know or understand at the end of the lesson?” (p. 17). These outcomes typically finish the statement “by the end of my class, students should be able to …,” and they should clearly outline the performance levels and expectations across multiple domains and levels of learning. Second, instructors design assessments both graded and ungraded, formative and summative to understand what students have learned. Finally, the instructor plans the learning activities that will help students practice and achieve the desired outcomes. Wiggins and McTighe state “understandings are the constructivist result of attempts by the student to make sense of the work and lessons, using inquiry, performance, and reflection” (p. 58). When applying backward design, faculty must include higher orders of cognition in varying domains related to student development. Fink’s (2003) work on significant learning demonstrates multiple learning domains should be present in courses or students will not truly learn or change without encountering material from multiple perspectives. Fink examined knowledge retention and found students who take a traditional course perform only modestly better on a course examination taken one year later than students who never took the class. To foster deep, significant learning, Fink suggests learning domains must include: 1. Foundational knowledge: students should understand and remember the basic content of the course (e.g., terms, concepts, and principles).

406

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

2. Application: students should use the content and engage in effective and appropriate kinds of thinking. 3. Integration: students should integrate different disciplines, major ideas, and realms of life. 4. Human dimension: students should identify the personal and social implications of this knowledge. 5. Caring: students should develop new feelings, interests, and values in relation to the subject. 6. Learning how to learn: students should keep on learning about the subject after the course is over. One way to achieve Fink’s (2003) goal for significant learning is to integrate experiential and inquiry-based learning (IBL) techniques. Applying these methodologies emphasizes constructivist ideas of learning and using experience to gain understanding. Montrose (2002) defines experiential learning as “a pedagogy that actively engages the student in the phenomena that they are studying” (p. 3). IBL is specific type of experiential learning that refers to active instructional techniques that foster student engagement and promote active questioning about the content under investigation (Davis & Arend, 2013; Kaplan et al., 2013). IBL techniques emphasize student-directed learning and questioning of materials, experiences, ideas, and reflection and involve what is referred to as the “investigation of complex questions and problems, often for which there is no single answer” (Davis & Arend, 2013, p. 107). In study abroad, applied experiential and IBL techniques enables learners to directly engage with the new culture and environment to generate their own ideas, ask questions, and seek new information in effort to develop solutions to complex problems (Montrose, 2002). Various teaching methods and learning opportunities support and facilitate IBL. Examples include case studies, simulations, field work, research, reflection, writing projects, and group work (Davis & Arend, 2013). Through these techniques, instructors shift learning to an investigative approach focused on discovering information and knowledge. By understanding IBL techniques, educators can apply student development and experiential theories to design intentional programs, services, and learning environments that promote holistic development. Regardless of the IBL technique used, the most critical goal is the level of student engagement and translation of the learning experience from a passive approach to an active, learner-centered model (Davis & Arend, 2013; Kaplan et al., 2013; Montrose, 2002).

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

407

When considering whether IBL methods are appropriate to use, Davis and Arend (2013) offer direction in determining if the learning outcomes match the methodology. In other words, “is this learning that involves being aware of and improving one’s thinking process? Does this involve criticizing information, evaluating arguments and evidence, or reasoning to arrive at conclusions? Does it involve what other people think?” (p. 105). Appendix, Experiential Learning Models, which appears at the end of this chapter, provides an overview of several methodologies that comprise experiential learning. Using IBL techniques, along with Fink’s (2003) taxonomy, encourages faculty to shift the curricular focus to better emphasize student learning. This paradigm shift can result in numerous creative tensions. From a faculty perspective, there is often little incentive (Simmons, 2012) to improve teaching methods, and there can be a perceived threat or loss of identity for faculty when transitioning from a unilateral communication and delivery model as the expert behind the podium. This has been the predominant model of higher education for the last century and this divergence can result in faculty fearing a loss of control when moving to a student-centered methodology. Faculty may also have concerns about how to move through content effectively when building an experiential and inquiry-driven classroom environment (Kaplan et al., 2013). As content experts, faculty members may experience an initial struggle in managing students’ beliefs, values, and needs in a more open learning environment that “puts more control of learning tasks and assessment methods in the hands of the learner” (Davis & Arend, 2013, p. 20). Additionally, students may struggle to make connections between the experience and expected learning outcomes as this may not come naturally to them after years of being taught to “receive, memorize, and repeat” (Montrose, 2002, p. 4). To address these concerns, faculty need to clearly understand their role and the importance of the pedagogical methods they employ. In IBL, the faculty becomes a facilitator of knowledge and the role becomes even more critical as students drive their own learning. Students are expected to be more engaged in their learning and develop the skills and attitudes necessary to explore new content, ask questions, and find answers to complex issues to construct new knowledge. As Arizona State University President Michael Crow stated to 2014 college graduates, “Whatever you’ve learned, you’ll have to learn more.” Also, the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (CAST) expressed “a concern that many graduates may not be well-prepared for future workplaces,” and indicated a “growing need for lifelong learning to maintain and upgrade one’s skills

408

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

and competencies” (CAST, 2013, para. 1). The urgency for student’s to gain critical competencies appropriate to the 21st century is clear, and faculty members are the key to preparing students for life after graduation. When correctly constructed, the IBL environment becomes an active ground for experimentation, interrogation, investigation, and leads to higher levels of student engagement and the exhibition of higher order thinking skills (Bloom, 1956; Kaplan et al., 2013; Montrose, 2002). To assist faculty members in this transition, institutions need to recognize and reward innovative teaching and invest in faculty development. The shift to learner-centered teaching is not easy or necessarily intuitive, and it requires significant effort from the instructor to restructure the curriculum (Davis & Arend, 2013). Transitioning to experiential and IBL methodologies requires faculty to shift from expert “teller” of information to expert “facilitator” of learning. This places faculty in a new role to help students build these critical skills and attitudes. Instructors play a crucial role in helping enable students to construct new knowledge and apply concepts and ideas to different contexts. Faculty members are responsible for creating the learning environments that spark student interest and inquiry through engagement with the learning process. Faculty must help students change their focus from “what” is known (content) to an emphasis on “how” to learn (process) (Davis & Arend, 2013; Kaplan et al., 2013). Instructors who apply experiential and IBL methodologies have multiple roles as an expert, a facilitator of information, and also as a learner. Faculty must share information, guide students through the learning process, while demonstrating openness to ideas and flexibility to learn in the moment. In the education abroad context, this is a fairly straightforward concept to imagine. A faculty living in the United States who has extensively studied the history of South Africa (expert role) who then travels with a group of students to South Africa, likely recognizes that there are local experts who may bring different ideas about South African historical events and share new perspectives and insight beyond what U.S. textbooks might depict. In this vein, faculties abroad are often open to bringing in local experts to contribute to the learning experience of the group (facilitator role) and will participate in learning alongside students (learner role). Throughout all stages of the learning process, while the student is responsible for his or her learning, the faculty member retains expertise, but expresses it in a different context: not by “downloading” information to students to memorize and repeat, but by illuminating hidden patterns and meanings and demonstrating how to apply knowledge across multiple context (National Research Council, 2000).

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

409

Vande Berg et al. (2012) describe the multifaceted faculty roles as facilitator, expert, evaluator, and coach. These roles are fluid and changing and require faculty to be adept at switching roles when needed to ensure student learning, “Educators must balance the learning mode they intend to elicit with signals that students send about how they expect the educator to behave” (p. 153). To create effective experiential and IBL learning environments, faculty must practice assuming these expanded roles to help students through the learning process (Northern Illinois University [NIU], n.d.). Continuing with the South African example, the U.S. faculty member serves as an expert, sharing information with students about South African history. The home institution faculty also expands on his/her own expertise and information by inviting local perspectives to help shape understanding of the topic. In doing so, this faculty member can incorporate various perspectives, while structuring student engagement to make information more accessible and applicable across contexts. For example, students might hear from a government agent who portrays the government’s and military’s roles during Apartheid in a sympathetic light, whereas a township resident might describe personal accounts of violence that embodies anti-government sentiments. By applying IBL techniques, faculty can better prepare students for the differing opinions presented, help students think through their ideas and develop questions about the information in advance, and facilitate reflection to explore content more deeply. Students could then review their notes, readings, and research to examine which perspectives align or diverge between resources. Home institution faculty need to be prepared to debrief new content that could be shared from visiting guest lecturers and help students learn to critically analyze and filter diverse opinions. Faculty should also use discussion to check student understanding throughout the process, switching between the roles of expert and facilitator, and bring in new information learned from outside resources that support the learning process. In Case Studies 2 and 3, two scenarios are presented to demonstrate the application of IBL techniques into the study abroad context and the importance of considering necessary adaptations appropriate to the learning environment.

USING INQUIRY-BASED PRACTICE ABROAD From this constructivist perspective, education abroad is not that different from a well-designed campus course, and these pedagogical changes

410

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

Case Study 2

Connecting Curricular Design to Student Development.

Professor Garcia teaches his study abroad summer course using the same syllabus he uses on campus. Modifications are made to accommodate intensive format, with three to four hours per day in class to meet his contact hour requirements during the two-week period his group will be abroad. He has additional readings and online discussions that students must complete outside of class. His course is lecture-based, and he gives daily quizzes on the reading, has two exams, and one research paper due on the last day of the program. Beyond class, he takes the class to visit five historically significant sites, and he provides lectures at each location to help students better understand their reading by seeing the sites in person. Students gave the professor poor ratings on his evaluations, complaining that he tries to cover too much content and that the class is really just a faster version of the same course on campus. Dr. Garcia is also frustrated, because he has had to increasingly deal with student issues such as homesickness and group in-fighting. He is also dissatisfied with the quality of the work he receives. Discussion questions: 1. What student development issues arose in the class and why? 2. How did the curriculum shape the student experience in this class? 3. How might Professor Garcia reframe his curriculum to create an inquiry-based learning environment?

necessitate similar curricular and faculty development reforms as campuslocated programs. Key elements that are of particular importance to creating a learning environment that fully engages students are reflection, assignment design, and assessment. The authors suggest providing strategies and activities for faculty development to help instructors challenge their own assumptions about teaching and learning and gain proficiency in developing multi-modal skills for creating effective learning environments and experiences.

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

Case Study 3

411

Applied Curricular Design Utilizing IBL Abroad.

Professor Garcia utilizes the content from his usual semester syllabus with modifications to accommodate the intensive format of the course with three to five academic activity hours per day while onsite. He also has required readings, discussions and journaling, in addition to a variety of site visits and academic field trips and independent exploration activities. When he assigns required readings, he has students attend class with a list of at least 10 questions daily or they can opt to take a quiz if they don’t have 10 questions prepared to turn in. Professor Garcia reaches out to several of his contacts in South Africa to provide onsite lectures or lead discussions with his students. In addition, he pairs up four groups of three students and assigns them to research topics that correspond to these site visits or guest speakers. The small group gives a brief presentation to their classmates prior to the actual event and prepares a list of questions generated from class discussion, in which they are responsible for investigating during the activity. After the activity, Dr. Garcia leads a de-briefing large group conversation and students are required to journal about their experiences. There is an exam at the end of the course. Students report significant learning gains and satisfaction with the program and Professor Garcia is pleased with the quality of student work in the course. Discussion questions: 1. What curricular changes were made between Case Study 2 and 3? 2. What examples of IBL and active learning are present in the curricular design of the program? 3. Which scenario do you believe would be more effective and why?

Reflection Reflection provides students the opportunity to think about an experience, explore their thoughts and feelings before, during and after the experience, and learn how to utilize information learned for future applications (Moon, 1999). They are thinking not only about the information learned

412

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

but the process of acquiring the knowledge and experience and their interactions with the learning process. In order to learn reflection skills and move beyond “fake reflection” (Vande Berg et al., 2012), students must understand how to think deeply and critically. This understanding of how to learn and engaging in thinking about the process of learning allow students to develop metacognitive skills. The development of critical thinking, reflection, and metacognitive skills are foundational to IBL (Kaplan et al., 2013). Reflection and IBL are closely linked as both revolve around exploration of a problem or dilemma in which information must be further explored to improve understanding. Both require questioning and critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion. Reflection is a key element in creating a successful IBL environment. Faculty must push students to think deeply and engage in reflection to develop higher order thinking skills. Cultivating the ability to engage in reflection is an essential skill in creating selfregulated learners, which is essential to constructing a classroom based around the exploration of knowledge through inquiry (Kaplan et al., 2013; Moon, 1999).

Assignment Design Davis and Arend (2013) explore seven effective learning methods, one of which is learning through inquiry. In this style of learning, students are developing critical and creative thinking skills, dialogical thinking, and reasoning. To develop these skills, instructors frame the learning environment as a text, or series of problems, to be understood through reading, reflection, discussion, and engagement. By using question-driven assignments and classroom discussion, faculty can help guide students’ interactions with the host culture and help them connect abstract concept to the practical, experiential aspects of the program (Steinberg, 2002). Using the aforementioned theories of reverse design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), instructors can also clearly outline the learning they hope to accomplish. Often, instructors assume that students understand how and why they constructed the activities, assignments, and curricula (Fink, 2003). They assume that the student can make connections between the reading and the paper assignment, or between the theory and a real-world problem. Student development theory and modern neuroscience suggest that students cannot always make these connections without support and assistance. To this point, IBL and other experiential pedagogies not only

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

413

facilitate student learning, but they also play a role in helping students learn how to learn, and “learning how to learn … is the greatest skill students need to know when leaving college” (Crow, 2014). Based on the literature and practice in the field, some practical applications of IBL and experiential pedagogy to assignment design include: • Align course learning outcomes to the goals and outcomes associated with each learning activity and assignment. Make these connections clear in the syllabus. • Ensure learning outcomes, rubrics, and assignments include aspects of student learning that do not just focus on cognitive learning. Experiential and problem-based learning offer excellent opportunities to promote intercultural, teamwork, and group interaction skills, as well as concepts such as citizenship, self-directedness, and empathy. • Give students “low stakes” (Fink, 2003) opportunities to practice meeting your outcomes. For example, instructors might use Pass/Fail opportunities such as journals, online discussion boards, discussion questions, classroom surveys, and simulation games. Remember that students may not be used to IBL techniques, so they need help transitioning into that type of learning environment. • Connect course material, assignments, and problems to students’ lives and ensure that they understand why the problem you pose is important to understand. When working in an education abroad environment, this process involves making the connection between the global and the local. Students will learn more if they can personally connect with the material. • Create learning resources for students such as reading guides, partial outlines (i.e., outlines with blank spaces to be filled in during an activity), or discussion points that help direct their attention and efforts toward the key ideas. Suggested resources and basic strategies to support faculty development in incorporating experiential and IBL strategies also appear in Tables 1 and 2 in this chapter.

Faculty Development To foster these skills and address concerns previously cited, faculty development activities are essential to help educators become more flexible and fluid in transitioning roles and structuring the curriculum to meet student needs in the classroom. Experiential and IBL classroom environments take

414

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

Table 1. Basic Experiential Learning Strategies for Faculty. Basic Experiential Learning Strategies for Faculty • Move away from all lecture-based learning by limiting the presentation of content to less than 50% of class time • Try using a “flipped classroom” in which students come prepared to class with questions and problems to discuss having done the reading and watched or listened to lecture online • Use simulation games, scenarios, critical incidents, or case studies that connect course content to real-world problems • Define learning outcomes in multiple domains (Fink, 2003) beyond just the basic concepts, including synthesis and application outcomes • Implement pre- and post-experience reflection and assessment for experiential learning and non-classroom activity • Coach students on how to learn in an experiential learning setting • Foster curiosity and facilitate inquiry through curricular design and course assessments • Start small: pick a few active learning techniques that are easy to implement and build from there • Evaluate and assess the success of your course using IBL metrics Source: Strategies adapted from Davis and Arend (2013) and Kaplan et al. (2013).

Table 2. References for Curricular Activities and IBL Learning Tools. • Five-stage model of reflection (Moon, 1999) • Problems, case studies, labs, projects, role playing, simulations, field experiences • Exam wrappers (Lovett, 2013) • Cultural mentoring, storytelling, model critiques, model-building exercises • Hevruta (Wright, Bernstein, & Williams, 2013) • NIU faculty development and instructional design • Electronic portfolios (Cambridge, Cambridge, & Yancey, 2009; Rath, 2010)

time to structure and develop, and require high degrees of intentionality to transform student experiences and engagement with learning into concrete knowledge.

CONCLUSION Higher education has traditionally espoused more value than simply the delivery of facts and building job skills; rather, it is a time for students to develop and grow into mature young adults. With calls to cut costs and stream-line delivery in the face of an underprepared workforce and

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

415

declining global rankings higher education must consider its value to society. High-impact pedagogies and inquiry-based teaching serve to accomplish this goal, but most faculty members are not trained in these pedagogies or student development. In fact, “Most college faculty teach by lecturing because few of them learned how to teach otherwise” (NIU, 2012, para. 3). Experiential and inquiry-based learning (IBL) models are examples of constructivist approaches to student learning that emphasize the importance of student interaction with content in complex, reflective ways. Although lectures and content delivery is still a valuable instructional method, increasingly educational, psychological, and cognitive science research suggests that more engaged, high-impact practices are better to enhance student learning and lead to growth and development. Experiential and IBL methods enable students to become deeply engaged in the learning process, developing a curiosity about knowledge, fostering critical and creative thinking skills and identifying new strategies to problem solving. Faculty who understand teaching and learning and holistic student develop can effectively create a teaching and learning environment to meet the diverse needs of today’s students in preparing them for a global workplace and life beyond academe.

NOTES 1. Individuals born after 1982, who entered college prior to the global recession (Strauss & Howe, 2000) 2. Neither adolescence nor adulthood, rather a period of time in which most individuals do not have comprehensive adult responsibilities, enabling individuals to explore their own roles and identities with regard to worldview, work, and relationships (Arnett, 2000).

REFERENCES Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469 480. Association of American Colleges, Universities, & National Leadership Council (US). (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise, Washington, DC. Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518 529. Augustine, N. R. (2013). One cannot live by equations alone: Education for work and life in the 21st century. Liberal Education, 99(2), 14 21.

416

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

Avon, N. (2010). Is an internship the new entry-level job? Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ 2010/LIVING/12/07/internship.new.entry.level.job/ Barclay Hamir, H. (2011). Go abroad and graduate on-time: Study abroad participation, degree completion, and time-to-degree. Educational Administration: Theses, dissertations, and student research. Paper No. 65. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsedaddiss/65 Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13 25. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Self-authorship as the common goal of 21st-century education. In M. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and needs of practice to education for self-authorship (pp. 1 35). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co. Inc. British Council. (2013). Culture at work: The value of intercultural skills in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/culture-at-work-research_march_2013. pdf Brockman, J. (2011). Is the internet changing the way you think?: The net’s impact on our minds and future. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., & Yancey, K. B. (2009). Electronic portofolios 2.0: Emergency research on implementation and impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experiences of American undergraduates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. CERI. (2013a). Recruiting trends. Retrieved from http://www.ceri.msu.edu/recruiting-trends/ CERI. (2013b). T-shaped professionals. Retrieved from http://www.ceri.msu.edu/t-shapedprofessionals/ Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clegg, S., & Bufton, S. (2008). Student support through personal development planning: Retrospection and time. Research Papers in Education, 23(4), 435 450. Crow, M. (2014). Graduation address to Arizona State University. Retrieved from https:// asunews.asu.edu/20090513_video_crow Davis, J. R., & Arend, B. D. (2013). Facilitating seven ways of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Deardorff, D. K. (2004). Internationalization: In search of international competence. International Educator, 23(2), 13 15. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241 266. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers, 10, 151 164. Dwyer, M. M., & Peters, C. K. (2004). The benefits of study abroad: New study confirms significant gains. Transitions Abroad, 27(5), 56 59. DiCaprio, N. S. (1974). Personality theories: Guides to living. St. Louis, MO: W.B. Saunders Co. Erwin, T. D., & Coleman, P. K. (1998). The influence of intercultural experiences and second language proficiency on college students’ cross-cultural adaptability. International Education, 28(1), 5 25.

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

417

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Farrugia, C. A., & Bhandari, R. (2013). Open doors 2013 report on international education exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Fink, D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fischer, K. (2009). Short study-abroad trips can have lasting effect, research suggests. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/ 12191n.htm Gardner, P. D., Chao, G. T., & Hurst, J. (2008). Ready for prime time?: How internships and co-ops affect decisions on full-time job offers. Retrieved from http://ceri.msu.edu/ publications/pdf/internwhitep.pdf Garraty, J. A., Kemperer, L., & Taylor, C. J. H. (1981). The new guide to study abroad. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. Hobbs, V. (2007). Faking it or hating it: Can reflective practice be forced? Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 8(3), 405 417. Humphreys, D. (2013). Success after college: What students, parents, and educators need to know and do. Liberal Education, 99(2), 6 13. Ingraham, E., & Peterson, D. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on study learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers, 10, 83 100. Kaplan, M., Silver, N., Lavaque-Manty, D., & Meizlish, D. (2013). Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Kauffmann, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc. Kirkwood, T. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities. The Social Sciences, 92(1), 10 15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(2), 135 154. Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U. Kuh, G. D., & Pike, G. R. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges & universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185 209. Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope: A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lovett, M. C. (2013). Make exams worth more than the grade: Using exam wrappers to promote metacognition. In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. Lavaque-Manty, & D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Lumina Foundation. (2012). A stronger nation through higher education: A special report. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/A_stronger_nation_ through_higher_education.pdf Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers, 10, 179 200. Montrose, L. (2002). International study and experiential learning: The academic context. Frontiers, 8, 1 15.

418

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. London: Kogan Page & Sterling: Stylus. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http:// www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9853 Northern Illinois University. (n.d.). Faculty development and instructional design center. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/strategies/experiential_ learning.pdf Ogden, A. C. (2010). Education abroad and the making of global citizens: Assessing learning outcomes of course-embedded, faculty-led international programming. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/ 10524/6225 Opper, S., Teichler, U., & Carlson, J. (1990). Impacts of study abroad programmes on students and graduates. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Paige, M., & Fry, G. (2010). Beyond immediate impact: Study Abroad for Global Engagement (SAGE). Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Passarelli, A. M., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Using experiential learning theory to promote student learning and development in programs of education abroad. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, and what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 1 35). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2013). Letter to the president. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/ pcast_edit_dec-2013.pdf Rath, T. (2010). StrengthsFinder 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press. Roark, M. F., & Norling, J. (2010). An application of a modified experiential learning model for a higher education course: Evidence of increased outcomes. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 2(1), 59 73. doi:10.7768/1948-5123.1028 Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: The study of the student as a person. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Savicki, V. (2008). Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Sell, D. K. (1983). Attitude change in foreign study participants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 131 147. Simmons, E. H. (2012). Rewarding teaching innovation. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/04/18/essay-how-colleges-can-encourage-professors-innovate-teaching#sthash.qTC1esVU.dpbs Sindt, P. (2007). Internationalization and higher education: Understanding the impact of shortterm study abroad. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses (3288012). Smithgroup JJR. (2013). Designing for the T-shaped student. Retrieved from http://www.smith groupjjr.com/design_topics/designing-for-the-t-shaped-student#.U5hnq7dOW70 Spohrer, J. C., & Maglio, P. P. (2010). Toward a science of service systems. In P. P. Maglio, C. A. Kieliszewski, & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Handbook of service science (pp. 157 194). New York, NY: Springer.

Inquiry-Based Learning and Study Abroad

419

Stauss, W., & Howe, N. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage. Steinberg, M. (2002). Involve me and I will understand: Academic quality in experiential programs abroad. Frontiers, 8, 209 229. Vaccaro, A. (2014). Young talent: What to expect from the post-millennial workforce. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/adam-vaccaro/generation-after-millennials.html Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown consortium project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers, 18, 1 75. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012). Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3 14. Wright, M. C., Bernstein, J. L., & Williams, R. (2013). “The steps of the ladder keep going up”: A case study of hevruta as reflective pedagogy in two universities. In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. Lavaque-Manty, & D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Upper Saddles River, NJ: Pearson. Woolf, M. (2007). Impossible things before breakfast: Myths in education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 496 509.

420

PAIGE E. SINDT AND JAMES M. LUCAS

APPENDIX: EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING MODELS Experiential Learning Models Problem Based Learning

Active Learning

Content is introduced through problem solving. There is typically not a right or wrong answer, but rather multiple solutions that could respond to the issue in question. Success depends on acquisition of knowledge, comprehension of facts, ability to think critically and apply understanding to create solutions.

Students explore course content through participative activities in and outside of class to interact more closely with content. Helps students improve critical thinking and understand application of knowledge to new context.

Experiential Education/Experiential Learning Constructivist Educational Philosophy Often referred to as “Guide by Your Side” Faculty as Facilitator Teaching methods blend learning, direct experience and reflection to help students make meaning through intentional engagement in the learning environment. Recognizes critical roles of both teacher and learner to foster student development and learning.

Meaning Centered Learning A holistic process of learning that requires disruption for transformation. MCL blends the roles of instructors and learners as a collaborative to creating knowledge. Knowledge and understanding are facilitated through critical inquiry and reflection.

Inquiry-Based Learning The learning environment emphasizes student regulated learning based upon research, exploration and discovery through field and case studies and realworld problem solving. Instruction fosters active questioning of knowledge and ideas by learners.

UNDERSTANDING THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR FACILITATING INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Jaimie Hoffman and Jill Leafstedt ABSTRACT In this chapter, we argue that if online education moves toward a dynamic, collaborative, and humanized experience, inquiry-based learning can result almost naturally. We begin by briefly tracing the history and growth of online education and discussing the real, and often negative, perceptions about online education. The readers are then asked to consider their assumptions about student’s learning experiences in the face-to-face environment before making decisions about strengths and limitations of online education. The chapter then provides an overview of how online education and technology-enhanced classes create natural linkages to inquiry-based learning while meeting the unique needs of diverse learners; general examples of technology as a modality for inquiry-based learning are provided. The chapter culminates with four case studies that demonstrate how inquiry-based learning can be facilitated outside of the classroom walls and effectively integrated with technology. The case studies are drawn from education, chemistry, and business providing an example of how to investigate facts through collaborative presentations,

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 421 437 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001021

421

422

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

develop informed opinions through asynchronous discussion, and make sense of concepts through curation.

INTRODUCTION According to the US Census Bureau, computers have found their way into an increasing number of homes in the United States (an increase from 8.2% in 1984 to 75.6% in 2011) along with access to the Internet (an increase from 18% in 1997 to 71.7% in 2011), thus it is no surprise that many individuals are using technology for learning. With origins tracing back to the 1980s (Harasim, 2000), online education has provided access to higher education for learners who are juggling a myriad of responsibilities, including things such as full-time jobs, parenting, and elder care. The vision of what many have of a traditional “college student” a person just out of high school, living in a dorm at a University is now an inaccurate portrait. According to Tabarrok (2012) “the reality is that more than a third of college students are over the age of 25, nearly half are enrolled parttime, and most are working. About one quarter of college students have children of their own!” (p. 32). Many of these students are unable to fit into the rigid brick-and-mortar educational setting. In the last decade, online education has boomed and an increasing number of students have elected to pursue a degree online; both for profit and non-profit universities and colleges have responded to the need for increased online coursework. According to the 2013 Survey of Online Learning conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group (Allen & Seaman, 2013), not only has the number of students taking at least one online course surpassed 6.7 million, but 32% of students enrolled in higher education take at least one class online. This growth is predicted to continue and chief academic officers intend on riding the wave 69.1% indicate that online learning is significant to their long-term strategic plans (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In this chapter, we argue that if online education moves away from a model of text-based discussion and passive absorption of information toward a dynamic, collaborative, and humanized experience, inquiry-based learning can result almost naturally and students’ learning experience can be improved. We contend that all instruction should take advantage of new technologies that make information readily available to many learners. The chapter will then examine how technologies often used in online learning

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

423

can facilitate inquiry-based activities to enhance the learning experience. The chapter closes with case studies illustrating the seamless connection between inquiry-based learning and online or technology-enhanced learning.

A Closer Look at Online Education Online education allows individuals from around the world to realize their educational goals anytime, from anywhere. This provides higher education institutions the opportunity to meet the needs of diverse students. For our purposes, we discuss online education as the process where students are able to take courses to earn credit toward a degree. Among the strengths of online education is the fact that it supports the needs of non-traditional learners. For example, adult learners comprise about 44% of US postsecondary students in 2007 (Kazis, 2007). Online education not only provides a sustainable vehicle for the delivery of education to diverse learners, but it can also “ensure a high degree of student satisfaction, both in terms of actual and perceived learning outcomes” (Castle & McGuire, 2010, p. 36). When students are satisfied, they are often more motivated and less likely to drop out (Bollinger & Martindale, 2004). In fact, Heterick and Twigg (2003) found that a course redesign to a blended format (from a traditional format) not only resulted in improved learning on a majority of course outcomes, but also improved course completion rates, retention, and student attitudes toward subject matter and satisfaction. Despite the expansion of online education, it is still marred by a negative reputation. In many higher education communities, online education is perceived as glorified correspondence courses in which students post text-based messages to static discussion boards or email text-based assignments to mysterious facilitators who provide “canned” feedback. According to Kearsley (1997) “The most common misconception is that online classes will be fairly sterile and impersonal” (p. 16). It is easy to understand why much of online education is critiqued among faculty and administrators across postsecondary education. Unfortunately, at times this perception is correct online courses are often not used as effective learning spaces but instead are created with curriculum that is “‘granularize[d]’ making every course exactly uniform (Donoghue, 2011, p. 4)” which was a strategy announced by the shareholders of Apollo Group, the company that owns University of Phoenix. In order to steer clear of the aforementioned negative stereotypes and practices, educators must deliver “high-quality”

424

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

learning experiences that aim to achieve the spectrum of educational outcomes. To do this, we must take a careful look at the effectiveness of instructional strategies both within the face-to-face environment and the online environment. We contend that educators often make two questionable assumptions about face-to-face instruction. First, they assume that if students are physically present in a classroom they are learning. When making this assumption educators fail to acknowledge the diversity that exists in how students approach learning. Additionally, faculty often fails to effectively evaluate the impact of the face-to-face meeting time on student learning. In a nutshell, instructors often assume physical presence equates to cognitive and social presence (Garrison, 2007). This assumption is getting harder and harder to make in today’s highly distractible digital age, in which there are many diversions vying for students’ attention. A second assumption that educators make is that what is taught in the face-to-face classroom cannot possibly be replicated online (Donoghue, 2011). This statement likely holds some truth; the online environment is truly different enough that it is not possible to replicate face-to-face teaching; indeed, “traditional classroom lectures have no place in a successful online program (Illinois Online Network, 2010, p. 11).” Thus, if instructional strategies are adapted to the environment (online or face-to-face) it is possible to achieve similar learning outcomes. After conducting a series of randomized trials by assessing the learning that took place in a traditional course versus a blended course, Bowen, Chingos, Lack, and Nygren (2014) found comparable outcomes for the course regardless of format and noted that “hybrid-format students did perform slightly better than traditional format students on three of the outcomes” (p. 25). However, if we attempt to replicate a traditional classroom online without careful thought about pedagogy and course design, we may end up with what many are afraid of, a course consisting of static posts, recorded lectures, readings, and monotonous quizzes-void of human presence or interaction. What works in the face-to-face environment, such as active learning and inquiry-based approaches, should inform the online environment, but it should not aim to simply “do the same.” Online learning has the potential to create a humanized, dynamic, and high-quality learning experience that provide self-directed learning opportunities that not only engage the learner but also transcend across disciplines and geographic borders. If used effectively, the online environment allows for asynchronous and synchronous communication in which every student’s voice can be heard. It allows for collaboration in a time and space that all students have access to. Online

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

425

learning can bring the vast amount of knowledge located outside the physical walls of the classroom, in cyberspace, to the student’s fingertips. It is important to realize that moving a course online or integrating technology into a course can provide an instructor with access to a whole new set of tools and resources. Hawkins (1997) provides vivid examples of the ways technology can facilitate “limitless learning”: Students are conducting original research on the weather, for instance, using some of the same tools as professional scientists, then sharing their data and results with others all over the globe. Astronauts on the space shuttle and explorers in the jungles of Peru have involved students in the excitement of their discoveries as they happen. Using computer simulations, students are learning what it would be like to work in a particular career field, such as banking or hotel management, without leaving their classrooms. (p. 4)

Utilizing the Internet allows for the vastness of knowledge available on the web to be found, understood and applied by students; this, in turn, can facilitate their learning process toward higher order thinking. Failing to recognize the benefits of technology and the Internet does a disservice to our students.

Using Technology to Facilitate Inquiry-Based Learning This brings us to the primary purpose of this chapter, which is to discuss and provide examples of how inquiry-based learning can be implemented and possibly improved or enhanced by the integration of technologies. For the purpose of this chapter, we define inquiry-based learning as finding sources of information appropriate to complete a task, understanding the information and how it relates to the task and being able to apply this information in some way (when appropriate) (Grabe & Grabe, 2000). A student seated in front of a computer who is using the resources offered online is essentially “in the driver’s seat” of his/her learning and has immediate access to infinite destinations; this creates a natural linkage to inquiry-based learning. Since much of online learning is asynchronous, the experience is naturally self-reflective and lends to deeper learning that may not be achieved in a fully face-to-face experience. For example, a student in an online course recently told his instructor, “I love this class, because in our regular classes the discussion ends when class is over, but my thoughts don’t stop. In this class I can always go back to the discussion and continue the conversation. I get more time to think.” Online journals can be used to

426

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

capture this type of self-reflection as students explore questions and establish solutions. The Internet can be used to find resources that contain solutions to questions generated individually by each student. Students can conduct interviews independently and report findings through a narrated, interactive video (which simultaneously creates a collaborative learning experience). Videos posted online provide students with the ability to explore concepts from different perspectives and experts across various fields, which can contribute to one’s own understanding before establishing a solution. Christiansen (2003) provides an example of an inquiry-based assignment where students in an online graduate course for an Instructional Design degree were required to design a solution to an instructional problem and find information on the web in order to create a prototype for a lesson and an accompanying handbook containing resources and tools for future reference. Students found the course to be valuable and effective; one student said “the course helped increase my confidence in my ability to solve instructional problems” (p. 240). Countless opportunities exist across disciplines to use technology as a modality for inquiry-based learning. Therefore, we also wish to emphasize that inquiry-based learning can effectively be woven into fully online or blended classrooms. In the following section, we provide four case studies that illustrate ways that technologies can take advantage of the vastness of knowledge found outside the textbook and the classroom to support the facilitation of inquiry-based learning activities. These examples establish the learning expectations for the student, but allow for exploration and discovery.

CASE STUDIES We present four case studies that demonstrate how inquiry-based learning can be enhanced through the integration of technology. We have defined inquiry-based learning as the process of finding information to complete a task, understanding it and how it relates to the tasks and applying this knowledge (Grabe & Grabe, 2000). Three of the case studies are from fully online classes and one is from a face-to-face class that uses technology to enhance instruction. We have included the face-to-face example in order to round out the idea that technology can enhance inquiry-based learning. One of the courses is a master’s level course while the other three are

427

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

undergraduate. The activities presented in each case study could easily be modified and applied across any mode of instruction that uses technology to enhance learning. The case studies have been developed by the authors: the first two case studies are taken from their courses and the last two case studies are based on interviews with the course instructors. The authors also conducted a close examination of the student work products. Although the case studies present four different activities in three difference disciplines (Education, Chemistry, and Business), they all used inquiry-based learning and technology to broaden the reach of their instruction, teach students new literacy skills, and provide a means for students to dig deeper and think critically about the content they were learning. The specific activities described take advantage of the richness of the online environment to guide students through research, analysis, and presentation, as they make connections between their existing knowledge and new information they gather. The activities provide students with a framework to find, understand, and apply new knowledge. We begin each case study with a brief description of the course and then describe an inquirybased activity included in each class.

Investigating the Facts through Collaborative Presentations Moderate Disabilities

Mild/

This example is drawn from a fully online course titled “Individuals with Disabilities,” which meets general education (GE) requirements and is a prerequisite for entering the teaching credential program. The overall purpose(s) of the course is to expose students to a variety of disabilities, give an overview of the laws that protect the civil rights of people with disabilities, and demonstrate how our school system educates people with disabilities. At the close of this course students are expected (among other objectives) to be able to find valid and reliable information about disabilities. The course had 30 undergraduate students enrolled who were all students in junior or senior standing. Student majors varied, with over half being from Psychology. Fourteen percent of the students were taking the course as a prerequisite for a teaching credential program. According to an introductory survey given at the beginning of the semester, half of the students had taken an online course before. Most of the students stated that they enrolled in the online section of this course due to scheduling conflicts with the work, childcare, or other coursework. The following is an example

428

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

of one activity that utilizes inquiry-based learning to further develop students’ research skills and critical thinking. The instructor facilitated this using activity using asynchronous collaboration with a “wiki-like approach” to content creation. An asynchronous approach was chosen to allow students to work in a time and space that was convenient to them and to allow the conversation to not be time limited. In the world of educational technology, “wiki-like approach” is used to describe online collaboration where students create, edit, and modify each other’s contributions. “Google Presentation” is a great tool to facilitate this “wiki-like approach” because it allows the students to collaboratively build presentation slides with text and multimedia. A “Google Presentation” was used rather than a true wiki because the presentation template provided in the Google Presentation creates natural limits on how much information can be added; this forces students to edit and improve rather than just keep adding content. This particular activity required that students add, edit, and validate content in the collaborative presentation. With this inquiry-based approach, students were given control over their learning, but the context and boundaries were clearly set. Students were asked to find information about mild/moderate disabilities covered under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. They searched for valid information on the prevalence rate, definition, characteristics, impact on family, impact on schooling and effective teaching methods for specific learning disabilities, emotional disorders, and mild intellectual disabilities. After conducting finding research online, students had to understand and synthesize it to collaboratively build a presentation about mild/moderate disabilities on the Google Presentation template provided. The template included a title on each slide and acted as an outline for the presentation. Students were required to contribute information they had collected and build the content for each slide. Students contributed to as many slides as they wanted, but each slide had to represent contributions (content added and/or edited) from a minimum of two students with appropriate citations. As new content was added, students were required to confirm the validity of the entry by conducting their own research and verifying it (by placing their initials next to the information), they were also expected to edit incorrect information. To get students to investigate and utilize a variety of sources in their inquiry, the inclusion of graphics and videos was encouraged. After students completed the presentation, they were expected to comment on the sections that they did not write. In the final version of the presentation,

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

429

each slide contained input from a minimum of three students and most slides were commented on by at least one student. Through their comments, they illuminated places where they felt meaningful information was contributed and where they saw connectivity among the areas of disability. This activity was very successful for students in investigating their own understanding of mild/moderate disabilities. The students collectively generated a research-based, multimedia infused resource similar to a chapter in a textbook. All 30 students participated and contributed to an average of four slides. A review of the final document indicated that all information in the final presentation was accurate. In prior semesters, without this technology enhancement, students listened to a lecture and/or read a chapter to learn the content. As measured by an individual assessment given later in the year, it is clear that students gained a strong understanding of mild/moderate disabilities. In this latter assessment, students were required to apply their knowledge from the collaborative presentation activity by responding to a case study about a student with a mild/ moderate disability. In order to complete the case study they had to draw on information covered in the collaborative presentation. Student’s responses indicated that they not only used the information they contributed, but they drew from all aspects of the presentation to respond to the case study.

Exploring Institutions through Asynchronous Discussion and Collaborative Feedback Assessment in Higher Education The second case study is also from education, but focuses on higher education. The course, “Institutional Effectiveness and Program Assessment,” is fully online and is a requirement for completion of a Masters of Education in Higher Education program. The program is designed to prepare students to be effective leaders in higher education; many seek positions in student affairs/services areas (e.g., overseeing co-curricular programs such as student housing, multicultural programs, orientation programs, student leadership programs, etc.) while others focus on intercollegiate athletics, financial aid, academic advising, etc. The overall purpose of the course, which has an enrollment of 12 20 students, is to provide students with a foundational understanding of the rationale behind assessment and to prepare them to be able to conduct assessment. The value of assessment the ability to ensure one delivers high-quality programs that align with the

430

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

overall educational mission of the institution is woven throughout the course. Students take the course at varying times of their program and many are employed in a full- or part-time position in higher education while concurrently completing their degree. Activities in the course require students to investigate their institution and programs as it applies to the various aspects of assessment and institutional effectiveness. Two activities have been selected from this course as exemplars of how inquiry-based learning was used to support the student learning. Students were asked to find sources of information about institutional assessment practices, understand and reflect upon these practices as it relates to what is covered in the course, and apply this understanding through discussion about the meaning of these practices. While both learning activities required students to seek out information to complete a task, each used a different technology “tool” for reporting findings and collaboration; one used a discussion board housed in a learning management system (LMS), while the other used a “Google Document” situated outside of the LMS. This case study will culminate with a discussion about the impact of both activities on student learning outcomes and a comparison of both tools. The first activity took place in the course module that discussed the utility of commercially developed instruments (CDI) for providing data to inform practice. Students were asked to select an institution and find out which CDIs that institution participated in, reflect upon how data from these CDIs could inform their work, and discuss their experiences with gathering the information. To report this information, the students were expected to respond to the following discussion questions on a discussion board within the LMS: “What CDIs does your University (where you are employed) participate in? How could the data from these CDIs inform your work/program? What was the experience like getting this information?” On the surface, this may seem like an easy task, but the challenge lies in the fact that many universities do not collate this information in one area or website and in fact, many times various programs within the University elect to participate in a CDI in a silo; meaning that they do not share this information with other campus departments, often resulting in duplication of work and respondent fatigue from “over surveying” students. After posting their initial response, students were required to respond to each other’s findings to yield a greater understanding about their search and compare with their search experience. The goal of the activity was to have students realize the implications of CDI information being spread across the University and consider how they might approach the use of CDIs in their future career as leaders in higher education.

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

431

Through this activity, 80% of the students were able to locate the CDIs that their University participated in while 20% were unable to find any information pertaining to CDIs (after both searching the web and calling the Institutional Research office). Many of the students found information from the same institution (since this was their shared place of employment), but interestingly, they found different CDIs reported on various department websites across campus. The students engaged in a virtual dialogue about what this meant (CDI participation being dispersed across the University) and the implications on assessment at the University from a broader perspective. 82% of the students were able to indicate an understanding of the dispersion of CDIs across campus. The students who did not demonstrate achievement of this learning goal (18%) focused on other areas of the discussion question; they failed to fully respond to the prompt and/or a classmate did not encourage deeper reflection in this area. The open-ended nature of the discussion board often created a scenario where students responded to the elements of their peer’s response that most resonated with them as opposed to each piece of the original response. This activity provides an example of an inquiry-based activity that addresses a portion of our definition of “find, understand, and apply.” In using the discussion board feature, students were able to demonstrate that they had found information and that they understood what they found. This activity did not reach the final aspect we feel is important for inquirybased instruction, application. We suspect that this is related to the limited nature of the discussion board tool. Due to this finding, the following activity was modified to introduce another tool that had the potential to open up the discussion more broadly. The second activity required students to engage in a similar search and was included in the module of the course that discussed creating learning goals and outcomes. The activity sought to have students identify the degree to which their program’s (they typically serve as graduate assistants in a co-curricular program) purpose and learning outcomes did or did not align with the University mission and GE outcomes and to summarize how and why this alignment should occur. Though the alignment of learning outcomes to the University mission and GE outcomes may be a “given” to some, particularly those who engage in course and academic-programrelated assessment, this is often not known or practiced in co-curricular programs given its more recent introduction to the profession and accreditation processes. As with the first activity, students found information about a University’s (typically the one where they were employed) mission, GE

432

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

outcomes, and were required to assess how their own program’s purpose and outcomes aligned. However, this activity utilized a different technology, a “Google Document,” which included a series of questions with spaces after each question for the student to respond, resembling a template. After posting their responses on the “Google Document,” students were required to provide detailed feedback on their peer’s submissions by inserting comments on at least five questions. When a comment was inserted in a “Google Document,” the original poster responded to the comment, which created a threaded discussion surrounding that particular question (as opposed to the broad responses provided in the discussion board). This “Google Document” template approach facilitated the process differently than the LMS discussion board. The “Google Document” allowed students to easily respond to all questions associated with the assignment and engage in threaded discussions with their peers around each aspect of the assignment, thus deepening their understanding of each question. Through completing this assignment, 10% of students found some alignment with their program’s learning outcomes and the University mission/ GE outcomes, 35% of students found virtually no alignment, and 55% of the students found that their program did not have learning outcomes at all. This activity was successful at achieving the primary learning goals of the assignment: all students were able to summarize why and how program outcomes should align with the University mission and GE and were able to apply this knowledge by articulating how they would align program outcomes with the Institutional mission/GE outcomes when overseeing programs in the future. Without the use of technology, these activities would have had limitations and would possibly have been rendered ineffective for achieving the learning goals. Using the online format for discussion reduces the opportunity for a student to not do the work in many face-to-face settings students do not bring the assigned work to class. This creates a scenario where the student is physically present, but not able to participate and learn. By integrating the online sharing and discussion, the environment is set for students to be accountable and participate when they are prepared. The online nature of these activities allows for the time and space for students to reflect upon the search experience and information gathered in order to understand and apply it. Likewise, the feedback process in a face-to-face environment, which is highly dependent on student preparation, also takes more class time than is available and/or students might not receive the same depth of feedback.

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

433

Developing Informed Opinions through Asynchronous Video Discussion Genetically Modified Organisms The third case study is from a fully online Chemistry course titled “Chemistry and Society.” This course meets GE requirements for nonChemistry majors. The course provides an introduction to the basic principles of chemistry and a consideration of the benefits and problems arising from applications of chemistry. The goals of this course are to make Chemistry meaningful and to make overt the connections between everyday life and Chemistry. To achieve these goals, students had to move beyond their personal beliefs about issues involving Chemistry in society (such as safety of drinking water and drugs in sports), which are often controversial in nature, to establishing informed opinions. The 28 undergraduate students enrolled in this course represented various majors, none being from the Sciences. The activity described below required students to find, evaluate, and discuss research about the topic, enabling them to generate evidence-based opinions. To achieve his learning goals, the instructor used a web-based service called “VoiceThread.” “VoiceThread” is a tool that provides a space for asynchronous discussion (using text, voice, or video) around an artifact (image, presentation slide, video, etc.). This tool has proven to be effective for increasing student engagement and participation in the learning process (McCormick, 2010). In this inquiry-based activity, students investigated the topic of genetically modified organisms. The students were required to read a chapter from their textbook, which provided a common starting point for their investigations and assured a shared understanding to frame the inquiry. After reading the chapter, students were required to conduct a search for two articles about genetically modified organizations (GMOs) (find); one article that supported using GMOs and one opposed. Students posted audio and video comments in “VoiceThread” to summarize the findings of their articles (understand). After the students submitted their contributions to the “VoiceThread,” they were asked to listen to each other’s summaries, thus allowing their understanding of GMOs to increase. To complete the activity, students were asked to submit a final comment where they found connections between their research and that conducted by their peers, draw conclusions, and offer their informed opinion (apply). When covering controversial topics in a course, it is often very difficult to get students to go beyond personal experience. This activity did just that: they searched, reported, learned from one another, and informed their own argument. A review of the “VoiceThread” by the authors concluded

434

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

that 85% of the comments and arguments submitted on this activity were well thought out, linked to the research, and responsive to other student comments. Interestingly, this instructor did not provide guidelines for the sources students could pull from. At first glance, one might be concerned that students would pull on invalid sources for their schoolwork given the vastness of the Internet and the amount of sources providing less than factual information. This activity provided insight into what happens when students are free to select their own sources. In addition to finding two sources, students were also required to share their sources and present them to the class using a video comment on the “VoiceThread.” The process of sharing and presenting allowed other students to go directly to the source if they disagreed or did not understand their classmate’s explanation of the article. The students were then expected to use their classmate’s sources while forming their opinion. When reviewing the final “VoiceThread,” one could hear students disagreeing with their classmates findings or understanding of the findings. The ability to search freely into competing arguments provided the students the opportunity to learn firsthand about validity of information found online. If students had not delved into the vastness of research and utilized the web-based tools, the outcomes would possibly have looked very different. It is likely that some of the students would not have come to class prepared to provide evidence-based conclusions and only a handful would likely have offered opinions and been willing to contradict their classmates’ ideas. The handful of students who did participate would have been those who felt confident participating in a class discussion and came prepared for class (Rocca, 2010). The format of this assignment provided students with an opportunity to understand both sides of an issue and think critically about the available evidence prior to establishing an opinion. The time and space created for student to read, listen, and reflect on their research and others’ input is something that is often not available in a classroom setting.

Making Sense of Theory through Curation Systems

Management Information

Our final case study comes from a face-to-face Management Information Systems course, which is a required upper division course for Business majors. There were 30 Business majors in enrolled in this course who were juniors or seniors. This course is designed to guide students through examining the principles, methods, and procedures for planning, organizing,

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

435

leading, and controlling people within organizations. One of the instructional goals (and challenges) of this course is to help students navigate the path from a theoretical understanding of management theory to an applied perspective and back again. The instructor of this course facilitated the process of applying theory to practice by having students curate an online magazine based on the concepts and theories covered in the course. Digital curation of information is similar to what has been used in libraries and museums, but involves selecting and collecting digital information instead of physical items. Curation of digital media is considered a new media literacy and a skill that is necessary for making sense out of the vast amount of information available on the web. Using an inquiry-based approach to curation, students were asked to find and bundle and explain (understand) related news items about contemporary firms together on one website to illustrate connectivity to the theoretical principles covered in the course. To complete this “repackaging” of information, students used an online platform named “Scoop It” because it allows users to collect media, provide insight, and organize information in a meaningful way. The students each created a “Scoop It” site, which looks much like an online magazine, and were expected to add media and personal insight to their site each week. When selecting the articles to add to their site, they were expected to think about the course content and find links within the news items they found (apply). For example, one student chose the article, “University of Virginia Approves Framework of Strategic Plan,” which she connected to the relationship between strategic plans and mission statements, a concept covered in the course. Students were also required to follow each other’s sites so they could see the connections being made by their peers. During the face-to-face class sessions, students were asked to share their “Scoop it” site with the class, articulate how each entry related to the concepts and theories covered in the course, and respond to questions from classmates and the professor about the linkages. The connection between the online repackaging and the in-class presentation created an activity that provided students with both lower order search and higherlevel analysis/application skills as they presented their rationale for how the articles represented the theories and concepts. Thus, students were guided through the “find, understand, and apply” stages of inquiry-based learning. The feedback from this assignment was very positive. Students enjoyed curating a site and indicated that it was a meaningful experience they often sent emails to the professor asking if he had seen their site because they found interesting articles. Additionally, and more importantly, their ability to evaluate information and make connections between course

436

JAIMIE HOFFMAN AND JILL LEAFSTEDT

content and their “Scoops” strengthened as the semester progressed. Had this instructor not included this “Scoop It” digital curation activity in his course, we can imagine that students may have been asked to bring in one article and attempt to make connections or that the instructor would have brought in articles and made the connections for the class. The instructor of this course reported that students were more engaged in the topics during class discussion (than previous semesters when hard copy news articles were used) and found more relevant connections between course content and the real world. Additionally, he reported that, although not directly measured, curation appeared to enhance students’ media literacy and research skills.

CONCLUSION Through this chapter, we presented an overview of online education and made a case for using it to create a dynamic, humanized learning experience. We discussed the potential that technology provides for facilitating inquirybased learning and culminated our argument case studies that illustrated activities that varied in complexity but all gave insight into how four different professors used technological tools to facilitate inquiry-based learning. As online education and the use of technology as a teaching tool expand exponentially, it is imperative that the effectiveness of our teaching methods is evaluated. Likewise, it is important to examine our methods, such inquirybased approaches, to see how they can be replicated and/or enhanced through the use of technology. Our look at inquiry-based learning illustrates the complementary nature of technology, making the pairing essential for online learning. Inquiry-based learning takes advantage of the elements that are implicit in the online learning experience (e.g., asynchronicity, use of the Internet, time for reflection). Access to the Internet and the vast array of information and tools available online make it hard to ignore the fact that students can and should be asked to take an active role in their learning. They should be asked to find information, understand and reflect on that information, and consider how this applies to their coursework and future careers and using technology allows them to do just that.

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Understanding Technology for Facilitating Inquiry-Based Learning

437

Bollinger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E Learning, 3, 61 67. Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94 111. Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), 36 40. Christiansen, T. K. (2003). Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235 243. Donoghue, F. (2011). Online learning: Good, bad, inevitable. The Chronicle for Higher Education, July 11. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/online-learning-good-bad-inevitable/29814 Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61 72. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2000). Integrating the internet for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41 61. Hawkins, J. (1997). The world at your fingertips: Education technology opens doors. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/world-your-fingertips. Accessed on June 1, 2014. Heterick, B., & Twigg, C. (2003). The learning MarketSpace. Retrieved from http://www.center.rpi.edu/LForum/LM/Feb03.html. Accessed on February 23, 2014. Illinois Online Network. (2010). Weaknesses of online learning. Retrieved from http://www.ion. uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/overview/weaknesses.asp#Environment. Accessed on July 21, 2014. Kazis, R., United States Department of Education, Jobs for the Future, Inc., Eduventures, & Futureworks. (2007). Adult learners in higher education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research. Kearsley, G. (1997). A guide to online education. Retrieved from http://w3.cs.com.uy/u/gux/ doc/tech/online.htm McCormick, V. (2010). Increasing teaching candidate responses through the application of VoiceThread. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(11), 160 165. Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185 213. Tabarrok, A. (2012). Why online education works. Retrieved from http://www.cato-unbound. org/2012/11/12/alex-tabarrok/why-online-education-works US Bureau of the Census. (2011). Computer and internet use in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.akmhcweb.org/Docs/computerREPORT13.pdf. Accessed on June 3, 2014.

SUPPORTING EQUALITY OF EDUCATION THROUGH INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING Joseph O’Shea and Latika L. Young ABSTRACT In this chapter we argue that inquiry-based learning can be efficacious in providing diverse and flexible levels of challenge to promote educational growth across a variety of populations. In this way, we position inquirybased pedagogy as a way to support equality within education, as the practice promotes the academic and personal development of each unique student. We ground our argument in a philosophical approach that advocates for equality of educational growth as the principal guiding and evaluating measure. We outline how a university can take a scaffolding approach to embedding research-focused, inquiry-based learning throughout the curricular and co-curricular landscape of an institution, presenting an approach that facilitates students’ growth toward open inquiry and the highest levels of scholarship. Within an era of scarce resources, we focus on programs representing a wide range of cost and scalability so that they can be implemented to best suit individual institutional needs.

Inquiry-Based Learning for Faculty and Institutional Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 1, 439 458 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120140000001022

439

440

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH How do we promote equality within higher education? Should we focus on equality of investment, in which we devote equal resources to all students; on equality of opportunity, which seeks to ensure that opportunity is equally provided to students; or on equality of achievement, which prioritizes student outcomes above other considerations? Or is there a better approach? In this chapter we appeal to a broader sense of equality in education, one that recognizes the diverse needs and develops the unique capacities of all students (Brubacher, 1982; Plato, 2008). In this approach we strive for equality of educational growth. Educational growth requires more than just learning new material or memorization of facts. It occurs when a student is stimulated to develop new and more complex ways of understanding and making meaning of herself and the world around her (Baxtor-Magolda, 2009; Kegan, 1994; O’Shea, 2013). This conception of equality of educational growth is first predicated on the belief that all undergraduate students, regardless of family background, demographics, cognitive ability, learning style, or disability, should have equal prospects for reaching their full potential. Equality, then, is not just about access to and graduation from higher education. Nor is it simply about ensuring all graduates to have the same level of proficiency. Not providing high-achieving students an adequately challenging education to promote their full development, therefore, would be deemed an inequity, which is equally true when we fail to provide the appropriate resources to maximize the growth of lower achieving or underrepresented students. In other words, it would be an inequity for some students to be more or less challenged by higher education than others, and thus to be more or less impelled to grow. Consider these two cases. Jake is a weaker student and struggles in college. Through suitable institutional support, however, his college challenges him appropriately, albeit not excessively. His grades upon graduation are average compared to other students, but he demonstrates significant personal and academic development during his time at the institution. Nancy, on the other hand, is a gifted student who finds college unstimulating and unchallenging. Most of the time she spends in class each day is largely wasted, since it is primarily based on rote memorization of facts presented in a lecture format that she is able to grasp upon initial explanation. Although she demonstrates a high level of academic success in the classroom, she has little growth upon graduation in the way that one does

Supporting Equality of Education

441

when challenged through inquiry-based learning (IBL) or other highimpact practices. Based on academic standing at graduation, some might say that the college successfully fulfilled its mission in Nancy’s case, but did not adequately serve Jake. But this view is flawed if we examine this scenario in light of equality of educational growth. By not challenging both Jake and Nancy to reach their full academic and personal potential, the college did not fulfill its commitment to equality. Promoting equality of educational growth demands we do more than simply offer programs at a college. Ensuring equality of educational growth must be a priority both within and outside a classroom. Within the curriculum, a standard, universal approach does not necessarily promote equality in educational growth, principally because it does not meet the diverse needs of the student body. High-achieving and gifted students may need extra challenge within the curriculum, while slower learning students may need extra support or may be over-challenged by parts of the curriculum. This conception also gives support for honors courses and similar curricular programs and should encourage educators to think of these students as a special population in need of additional resources, similarly to how we approach traditionally underrepresented students, for instance. Outside of the classroom, unequal educational growth among students stems, to a great degree, from uneven participation in high-impact practices such as undergraduate research, international study, internships (Finley & McNair, 2013; Kinzie, 2012) and similar experiences that are often rooted in IBL. For many students, a primary barrier to participation is cost (Kuh, 2008). College students, especially those from lower-income families, often lack funding to participate in transformative educational experiences. Furthermore, students may not have the cultural orientation, personality, or knowledge of higher education to successfully navigate the often nebulous world of academia that commonly rewards tenacious extroverts. In this way, socioeconomic and other disparities at the time of matriculation give rise to further educational and professional divergences during college, both within and across higher educational institutions (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Institutional support of engaging out-of-class experiences can be instrumental in overcoming these barriers that lead to inequality of educational growth. Despite these obstacles, our job as educators within this realm is to create an environment that can maximize all students’ educational growth. Like academic talent, academic motivation is not distributed evenly. We have a role as educators to help students expand their visions for

442

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

themselves and inculcate a deep desire for lifelong learning and selfimprovement. Though this conception does not necessitate dismissing the other considerations, such as distribution of investment and opportunity, it is intended as an ideal by which we can evaluate our institutional success and guide programmatic choices. How can we reach this aim, and how can we modify our system to limit such obstacles, promote fairness, and thus maximize educational growth for everyone? One promising approach is embedding and enriching IBL throughout the university. IBL is a pedagogy that “enables students to experience the processes of knowledge creation and the key attributes are learning stimulated by inquiry, a student-centered approach, a move to self-directed learning, and an active approach to learning” (Spronken-Smith, Angelo, Matthews, O’Steen, & Robertson, 2007, p. 1). Through IBS, students should develop “valuable research skills and be prepared for lifelong learning. Students should achieve learning outcomes that include critical thinking, the ability for independent inquiry, responsibility for own learning, and intellectual growth and maturity” (Spronken-Smith et al., 2007, p. 6). IBL has the potential to support equality of educational growth by providing a flexible degree of challenge that can impel students at all levels of achievement to develop fully. As Lewis Elton argues, “student-centered teaching and learning processes are intrinsically favorable” for a broad range of students, “while more traditional teaching methods may at best lead to a positive nexus for the most able students” (2001, p. 43). In order to meet the varied needs of all our students, we must provide both curricular and co-curricular programming that is accessible to all students despite background or other possible obstacles, but that simultaneously challenges all students to their full extent. Much research exists to support the efficacy of IBL practices, such as undergraduate research (Kuh, 2008). Scholars have increasingly advocated for strengthening the relationships between research, teaching, and IBL (e.g., Brew, 2003; Healey, 2005). The skills used in inquiry form the foundation of the research process: making observations, posing questions, examining evidence, interpreting data, making predictions, and communicating results (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23). Inquiry-based pedagogical approaches have the potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning (Deignan, 2009); enhance student engagement (Oliver, 2008); positively impact students’ future grades and course selection (Kogan & Laursen, 2014); promote more critical and complex thinking (Thoron & Myers, 2012); and facilitate intrapersonal and interpersonal development among a variety of populations (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Lopatto, 2010).

Supporting Equality of Education

443

A student’s engagement with a research project, for instance, can be scaled with varying levels of depth to reflect a student’s individual capacity. Students often find IBL to be more relevant to their own interests and needs, thus instilling a renewed sense of enthusiasm for their scholarship. Furthermore, inquiry-based projects should leave students asking more questions, pushing students into a virtuous cycle of learning and development, and creating a solid foundation for a student’s lifelong learning process. From a more practical viewpoint, IBL can also provide undergraduates the necessary academic, leadership, critical thinking, group work, and time management skills to make them highly competitive applicants for postgraduate study or to seamlessly enter the workforce upon graduation (Hutchings, 2007). IBL can also help young people to become citizens of the world. We need our students not only to be critical and innovative thinkers but also to have the character and dispositions to use their talents to help others (O’Shea, 2013). Well-structured IBL helps young adults understand themselves, their relationships, and their local and global contexts, which deepens capacities and perspectives crucial for effective citizenship. It can also be paired with community engagement, resulting in thinkers who apply their capacities to improve communities. In this way, IBL does not simply promote learning new material, but it accelerates the development of educational growth. Spreading this pedagogy across the university has the potential to promote fairness and overcome structural features that can hinder a student’s growth. But how does an institution implement this in practice? Surely, a comprehensive attempt to employ inquiry-based pedagogy to achieve greater equality of educational growth would include both curricular and co-curricular interventions. What models exist to do this, how can it be implemented with limited resources, and how do we spread these interventions across intellectual and socioeconomic backgrounds to ensure the pedagogy is widely distributed and accessible? This chapter draws largely on institutional efforts to strengthen research-focused, IBL within undergraduate education at Florida State University, in hopes of adding to the wider dialogue on how universities might embed and enrich inquiry-based approaches across their institutions. The sections below primarily focus on embedding research as a form of IBL. This reflects the view that undertaking research as an undergraduate represents one of the most rigorous forms of IBL, an experience that moves students along the spectrum from “structured inquiry” toward “open inquiry” (Banchi & Bell, 2008). We outline here an approach that scaffolds

444

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

research-focused, IBL throughout the academic landscape, incrementally challenging and supporting students over the course of their undergraduate careers and moving them along the trajectory toward independent scholarship. In doing so, we bridge curricular and co-curricular programming, with the aim of reaching as many students as possible and promoting equality within education.

EMBEDDING INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING WITHIN THE CURRICULUM Many obstacles exist when attempting to expand IBL in the curriculum. Resources are scarce, and faculty members often face numerous competing priorities that may make it difficult to modify their undergraduate curriculum and pedagogy. On top of this, classes are often large, giving less opportunity for individualized attention. But embedding IBL within coursework means that a wider range of students will engage in the practice than if they were left to secure out-of-class opportunities on their own. Given these constraints, how can we encourage and support faculty who wish to embed IBL in their courses? And how can IBL be expanded throughout a curriculum to enrich the educational growth of students? Below we illustrate an undergraduate curricular intervention, drawing primarily on a low-cost model that uses graduate/senior students as consultants to guide, coach, and mentor undergraduates through researchfocused, inquiry-based projects. Drawing on program assessments, we highlight benefits for the faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates involved and address how this flexible approach can challenge students at appropriate levels. We then outline sample courses, including those that collaborate with community and industry partners.

Graduate Research Consultant Initiative at Florida State University As a large, public research institution with a relatively high student-tofaculty ratio, Florida State University’s faculty, like many within higher education, face numerous competing priorities, making it difficult to provide more intensive, individualized instruction to students. Spurred by a desire to enrich our students’ critical thinking and promote students’ career and graduate success, Florida State University developed the graduate

Supporting Equality of Education

445

research consultant (GRC) initiative, providing the scaffolding to develop a more engaging, inquiry-driven curriculum that can reach a wider range of students than would otherwise be possible. Inspired by a similar program at the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill, the GRC program is designed to bolster inquiry-based research opportunities for undergraduate students as part of their traditional coursework. Students in these courses learn introductory inquiry skills, such as developing questions, reviewing literature, analyzing evidence, and sharing results. This easily scalable, introductory IBL program helps students acquire skills and motivation to begin to move along the spectrum of inquiry toward an independent scholarship. Faculty who wish to integrate a research project or assignment into an existing course can request a GRC. The GRC is provided a $1,000 stipend as a lump payment to work with the students (40 + hours throughout the course) to help them design, implement, and share research projects. Although flexible in design, the research component typically takes the form of individual or group projects that enable the students to develop research questions, collect and analyze data, and share their results via a presentation. GRCs are available to collaborate with faculty from across the disciplines of sciences, social sciences, and the humanities, in classes ranging from introductory to advanced level courses and that range from small to large student enrollments. Faculty members are able to select one GRC for each course, either by choosing a graduate student with whom they have previously worked, or by forming a new collaborative partnership, possibly even from outside of the faculty’s department. In this way, the GRC model can spur new thinking, as one faculty member shared, “It has been a great impetus to think creatively,” and can foster innovative, interdisciplinary scholarship. As one participating faculty member attested: The GRC has much the same relationship with the undergraduate students as I have with the graduate students. An extremely capable and knowledgeable researcher in his own right, the GRC works with the students on details of data collection, software usage, analysis, etc. I work with the students on the questions, research design, and the identification of analytic methods.

The GRC is not the same as a teaching assistant. GRCs have extensive knowledge in research methodology and their role is to help facilitate the research process; they are not involved in grading students’ work or administering the class and are not required to attend all class sessions. GRCs might attend selected classes to discuss research, but they are primarily

446

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

available to coach students/groups during individual or group consultations, thus providing the students a more directed and inquiry-based research experience than would otherwise be possible without this facilitation. As another faculty member put it: “The GRC has emboldened me to ask students to design their projects independently and seek assistance outside of the classroom.” Collaborating with a GRC provides numerous potential benefits for the participating faculty, including: • Logistical support for promoting undergraduate student research, making the overall process more convenient. • The opportunity to engage more undergraduate students in the research process in a directed manner that may also prompt future independent student research. • Collaboration with a GRC who may have familiarity with certain research methodologies, statistical methods or software that complement the faculty’s expertise. Undergraduates who complete a GRC-assisted course have reported in program assessments that they gain numerous positive benefits, including gaining practical, “hands-on” experience, increased confidence in elucidating their own ideas and questions, introduction to useful reference resources, increased fluency in statistical methods, and an overall boost in conducting and presenting original research. Participating faculty have also attested to these benefits: • Students learn to generate rather than just memorize ideas, students learn to support ideas with evidence, and students think about how knowledge and progress are generated. • I always enjoy working with students to help them expand the horizon of their own intellectual engagement with important ideas. This course has helped, at least some of them, take initial steps beyond being mere students into actual scholarship.

The graduate students who serve as GRCs also benefit by developing professional skills, as one shared: “Serving as a GRC helped me understand how to better help students who are conducting research of their own. Throughout the course of the semester, I was better able to aid the students in their projects.” This encourages them to include further inquiry-based opportunities for undergraduates during their careers as future faculty after graduate school, as one GRC reported: “I will be more likely to use a research project in future courses I will teach.”

Supporting Equality of Education

447

Graduate Research Consultant: Four Cases General Psychology General Psychology is a large, lecture-based course with 220 students in each section with almost 4,000 students taught over the course of an academic year. Traditionally, students in the course surveyed various psychological theories and methods and were assessed through tests. Their exposure to the scholarly inquiry process was largely limited to being participants in faculty members’ research studies within the department. There was little student exposure to IBL, despite interest among the faculty to include more inquiry-based approaches in the course. With the help of a number of GRCs, the course was modified to include a substantive research project for each student designed to teach critical thinking and the use of scientific methods to understand psychological phenomena. The projects involve students: (a) reading about selected psychological theories, (b) developing research questions relevant to one theory of their choosing, (c) developing methodologies for investigating those questions, (d) collecting data using one methodology and technology, (e) participating in the analyses of the data, (f) describing the results, and (g) interpreting the results, with attention to limitations and implications. As students work on their projects, they participate in online discussions with other students working on the same research question. The discussions are monitored and directed by GRCs. GRCs also provide students with feedback on initial drafts of the written sections of their virtual posters.

Ethical Issues Ethical Issues was traditionally an introductory, lecture-based philosophy course in which students surveyed various ethical theories and then examined current ethical dilemmas through assigned readings. Students were assessed by quizzes, short papers analyzing assigned readings, and exams. With the help of a GRC, students are now tasked with executing an individual research project with the goal to contribute to the discipline. The GRC meets with students to discuss ideas, attends special research skillbuilding workshops in the university’s library, reviews students’ drafts, and facilitates a peer-review process within the course. Students present their research on campus at university research symposia and the projects are “published” in the library’s digital repository. Students are also encouraged to present their research at national undergraduate and professional conferences; in one recent iteration, student research arguing against hospital

448

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

policies barring patients from having vaginal births after having had a cesarean section was presented at a national bioethics conference. SAS for Data and Statistical Analysis Instead of working on preformed data in assignments, students now engage with a range of IBL skills throughout the duration of the course. With the assistance of a GRC, students pick a topic of interest and focus on finding a previously unanalyzed dataset that they believe will help answer a research question about their topic. The datasets concern a variety of topics, primarily drawn from the non-profit and industrial sectors. Many community-based organizations have data but limited time and resources to analyze it, and the GRC helps to manage relationships with local community organizations. Once they acquire the data, students are required to structure it appropriately for the analysis phase, all while utilizing the SAS system. Next they must determine appropriate graphical methods for presenting the data. Finally, students are responsible for interpreting the results and making actionable decisions in the context of the original problem. Students produce a written report and give a brief oral presentation of their project results to the class and, if applicable, the non-profit community organization. Experimental Drawing This course, which demonstrates research-in-action within a creative arts context, blends the existing Experimental Drawing class (traditionally studio-based) with a community-based class, Art Alleys, which takes students out of the studio and into the city. During this “field work,” students visit blighted areas of the city that have been selected as potential sites for artistic transformation and also interact with and interview people facing homelessness and other community volunteers. In groups, students draw upon these experiences to design their artistic responses, which are then installed into the public spaces (or “Art Alleys”) and presented during art openings for the wider community. In this case, the GRC provides the assistance that allows the professor to blend the courses and effectively manage the group work and community experiences for the participating students. As this discussion has illustrated, this method is low cost and scalable across the curriculum. As such, it has the potential to reach a wide swath of students; if scaled optimally, this approach could be implemented in all departments, thus ensuring that all students have engaged in a researchfocused, IBL experience before graduation. This also has the potential to

Supporting Equality of Education

449

promote equality in educational growth by both being more accessible to students who are often underrepresented in co-curricular research-based inquiry programs and by being malleable to reach students at all achievement levels. Additionally, by exposing graduate students to this type of curricular approach, we hope to create a pipeline of future educators who appreciate and deploy IBL in their own pedagogy. Finally, it also has the potential to inspire students who were not previously motivated to continue their engagement with IBL, encouraging them to seek out further, cocurricular initiatives.

CO-CURRICULAR INITIATIVES Though curricular efforts can promote equality of educational growth among a large population of students, it is equally important to provide co-curricular, or blended curricular and co-curricular, programs that challenge highly motivated students who want to engage beyond the classroom. This section, then, explores high-impact, co-curricular, experiential practices and their intersections with inquiry-based pedagogy. We specifically discuss undergraduate research programs and international service learning, including ways to enrich the experiences by facilitating greater IBL within them. We illustrate specific types of training, reflection, and student projects, as well as mechanisms to support underrepresented students in these experiences.

Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) Engaging students early in structured, co-curricular programming that encourages research-focused, IBL has been found to be especially formative, promoting critical thinking, retention, and enhanced college performance (Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, & Lerner, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This can be especially true for minority and other underrepresented student populations (Gregerman, 1999). The Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) is a blended curricular/co-curricular initiative to engage more underclassmen and transfer students in academic research and to offer research assistance to faculty members and graduate students. Though UROP is a more intensive engagement with inquiry than the GRC program discussed earlier, the

450

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

students in UROP as first-time research assistants acquire introductory inquiry skills while working in a real-world research setting. Launched in Fall 2012, and inspired by UROP at the University of Michigan, participating students enroll in a colloquium introducing them to the practice of research, work as research assistants to faculty members and graduate students, and present their own contributions to their Research Sponsor’s project at the annual undergraduate research symposium. UROP, which enrolls over 200 students each year through a competitive application process, is open to students of all majors, including a special section for creative disciplines, and is designed to be a foundational experience in research that provides students the tools needed to undertake their own research project as upperclassmen. Special effort is made to recruit and select a diverse participant pool, both in terms of academic interests and also socioeconomic status and other background characteristics with a particular focus on first-generation students and student veterans. Furthermore, to support students with significant financial need, government work-study funding is awarded to offset income that could be lost by not assuming another job, providing students a financial incentive to engage in research. UROP is also helpful in university-wide recruitment efforts, as many high-achieving and ambitious high school students have come to expect research experiences in higher education. By helping recruit high-achieving students, increasing retention rates, and offering enriching student opportunities during college, UROP is expected to have a positive effect on the university’s rankings and reputation. As UROP Research Sponsors, faculty members, postdocs, and advanced graduate students have the opportunity to work with UROP student research assistants for a year-long period. To encourage faculty participation, faculty mentors are eligible to request up to a $500 materials grant to offset costs associated with taking on an undergraduate researcher (e.g., additional supplies or software licenses).

UROP Structure • The colloquium: The UROP colloquium is a training course for the UROP students, instructed by a UROP Leader (a third- or fourth-year undergraduate student experienced in research), who offers support in learning about research, finding and contributing to a faculty project, and presenting

Supporting Equality of Education

451

the work. This one-credit-hour pass/fail course meets on a biweekly basis for fall and spring semesters. In the colloquium, students discuss and engage with research topics, meet and hear from guest speakers and graduate students, and learn hands-on at skill-building workshops. By the end of the colloquium, UROP students are expected to be able to: define research and identify its role in the world; identify basic research designs and methods; read and review peer-reviewed articles; identify ethical concerns regarding research integrity and responsibility; write a research abstract; present their research contribution in an academic setting; and engage with a faculty member in a research setting. Many UROP leaders also have their students design group research projects over the course of the year that put into practice all of the relevant research skills the students were learning; often, these projects are then presented at the statewide undergraduate research conference. • The Assistantship: With the help of their UROP Leader, students select a faculty project on which they work as a research assistant. UROP students apply and interview for research projects in which they are interested in participating, though Research Sponsors ultimately select their assistants. In the assistantship with their Research Sponsor, students have duties that vary by discipline and specific project, but may include tasks like preparing samples, collecting data, conducting interviews, compiling sources, and writing literature reviews and manuscript sections. The assistantship lasts for two semesters and the students should have increasing understanding and involvement in the research project over its duration. • The Presentation: All UROP students present their work at the Spring Undergraduate Research Symposium. Presenting rewards to students with a conference presentation in their first or second year, a marker of their ability to not only conduct research but also communicate their results effectively, an opportunity that many students do not typically have until their junior or senior year, if at all. Benefits One of the greatest advantages of participating in UROP is the relationship students build with their Research Sponsor, and students are encouraged to actively nurture that relationship by doing their best work during their UROP assistantship and continuing to work with their Sponsor once their UROP experience concludes. Many faculty members describe how engaging underclassmen in research-focused, IBL is particularly helpful. The

452

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

small-scale setting provides an atmosphere in which students can ask questions directly to their Research Sponsor, providing a direct and immediate dialogue that is not always possible in the typical large-scale lecture classroom. As one professor shared: “Because of their unconstrained curiosity, they are phenomenal to work with. They don’t have a singular focus yet, so they aren’t so enmeshed that they’re not willing to ask naive questions.” Students have reiterated the academic and personal benefits of participating in UROP, inspiring them to more confidently ask questions and to take control of their academic decision-making. As these participants have shared: • This program has changed me so much as an individual. I am now more independent in my thoughts and my approach to thinking critically has improved dramatically. Now, I enjoy engaging in academic conversation with other students and faculty. UROP has taught me so much, not just about research but university academic engagement as a whole. • I learned how to teach myself mass amounts of information without anyone’s help, and how to be motivated when it looks like everything is about to fall apart. It helped me become a better public speaker with more confidence and more enthusiasm. • I think that the biggest change to me personally that UROP encouraged is the idea that research is something that I can do. It doesn’t have to be scary or intimidating. You ask a question and then you find a way to answer it.

If the GRC model is a way to provide an introductory IBL experience to a high number of students across the university, UROP is an attempt to offer deep and intimate early engagement with research-based inquiry for highly motivated underclassmen and transfer students. In doing so, the program provides a foundation for more independent scholarship in their latter years at the institution. This particular blended co-curricular model is a relatively inexpensive option that provides high-impact experiences promoting equality of educational growth for high-achieving students who may not be adequately challenged solely in the curriculum.

Global Scholars Global Scholars, a blended classroom/co-curricular program like UROP, combines in-class instruction with in-field, hands-on service learning. A research-focused, inquiry-based internship program, Global Scholars helps students partner with organizations in developing countries around the world to complete summer internships, thus providing a challenging

Supporting Equality of Education

453

academic, personal development, and career preparatory experience. Global Scholars offers an intensive, deeply challenging IBL experience, one in which the inquiry process for students is animated by the inequity and differences they encounter on the ground in developing communities around the world. Global Scholars is a bookended experience that provides pre-departure training, summer internships that last a minimum of two months, and postreturn activities to maximize students’ educational growth. The program aims to cultivate active citizens of the world who can utilize research, critical thinking skills, and intensive personal reflection to engage with different cultural perspectives and make a positive impact in the global community. Global Scholars is intentionally designed to be both accessible to a wide range of students from various majors and backgrounds while also malleable enough to challenge students at appropriate, individualized levels, a component of ensuring equality of educational growth. The program makes a concerted effort to involve and financially support low-income, first-generation students, who traditionally have lower participation rates in international experiences (Kinzie, 2012). All students in Global Scholars complete a one semester, pass/fail training course, taught in collaboration with our partner organization, Omprakash (omprakash.org), a non-profit that maintains connections with a network of over 140 community organizations in 41 countries. A hybrid online/in-person course, the material impels students to critically analyze their own intentions for getting involved in international service learning, as well as to understand the fundamentals of international development and to question the problematic trends inherent in “voluntourism.” The training course also prepares students to pose questions and review literature that they will need for their research-based capstone. Students’ perceived importance of the training course is evidenced in the following quotes: • I had only just begun to realize the harm that some international volunteering could do and that not all was necessarily positive, having been an international volunteer previously. The first week kind of busted open this topic for me and made me look critically on my past and future experiences in volunteering. • I truly found my mindset transforming into a ‘critical conscious’ mindset. I really enjoyed the course.

Throughout the summer internship, students focus their inquiry on a particular challenge facing their local overseas community, which culminates in a capstone project conducted using community-based ethnographic

454

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

research. The capstone may be communicated in the form of a more traditional research paper or a creative project. The Global Scholars program, then, challenges students to develop on many fronts, in ways likely not possible if they remained on our university campus, through intensive inquiry-based, reflective learning and praxis. The frequency and breadth of challenges students face during the Global Scholars experience overseas promote introspection and inquiry in ways and on topics unlikely to be questioned without such an experience. Having often deeply held assumptions about themselves and the world challenged and trying to resolve the tension this creates provides many students with the motivation and curiosity to engage in the inquiry process. As one Global Scholar attested after her internship in Northern Africa with a community organization addressing human rights, the experience “absolutely changed my perspective on life and the way I view the world.” Similarly, a student who interned in South America reported: “I feel another part of me waking up … another part of me growing rapidly, eager to let loose, explore and push my limits both physically and mentally.” As an immersive global experience, the program is among the highest impact practices a student may engage in as an undergraduate (Kuh, 2008) and demonstrates how IBL can intersect with community-based research, global learning, and civic development.

INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP As we move along the trajectory from curricular, to blended, to truly cocurricular programming, this parallels a transition along the levels of the inquiry continuum. A curricular program like GRC, which introduces a large number of students to the research experience within the classroom, is a beginning step that provides an opportunity to try out structured and guided inquiry techniques in a manner that is convenient for the faculty and provides varying levels of challenge for the students enrolled in these courses. Then, as is evidenced with blended (co)curricular programs UROP and Global Scholars, student participants transition to work as research assistants and/or to conduct their own introductory-independent projects, which allow them to begin working more consistently in a guided and open inquiry manner. This is a deliberate scaffolded approach that serves to prepare students who seek out the most rigorous academic challenges to grow into independent scholars who conduct sustained research projects of their

Supporting Equality of Education

455

own design, culminating in directed individual study (DIS) projects or even senior honors theses.

Summer Research Awards In order to support these high-achieving, highly motivated students as they strive for these truly open inquiry experiences that are the pinnacle of IBL at the undergraduate level and that necessitate these students moving beyond what is traditionally offered in the classroom, we offer over $100,000 in summer research awards. In comparison to many of our programs that are low cost and can reach a large swath of the student body, these summer research awards are high-cost but also extremely high-impact for these students who require intensive challenge and engagement. This funding, which ranges in awards from $1,000 to $5,000, allows students to concentrate fully on completing an 8 to 12week summer research and creative project of their own design (conducted under the supervision of a faculty mentor). To foster research that is directly beneficial to the wider community, we offer the Public Service Research Fellowship, which encourages students to design research projects in collaboration with non-profit organizations, either domestically or abroad.

Student Involvement in Inquiry-Based Learning: Two Cases To highlight the effects of the scaffolding approach, we describe below the cases of two students who have benefited from this method. To preserve confidentiality, names and identifying characteristics of the students have been altered. John John arrived to college already a high-achieving and ambitious student. He came thinking he wanted to go to medical school, but was also interested in the humanities. He joined UROP with varied research interests and began assisting a religion professor with her research. After building this foundation, John was eager to broaden his research involvement, so he then began working as an assistant in a chemistry lab before eventually deciding to conduct his own independent scholarship. Having participated in UROP, John now felt prepared to engage further in “open inquiry,” so he applied

456

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

for a summer research award, which led him to investigate a popular dance form in Europe. Upon returning to campus, he took a GRCsupported course, Ethical Issues, described earlier, which allowed him to investigate an ethical problem in medicine. There he began to discover how he could bridge his interests in the sciences, medicine, and humanities through Bioethics, and he applied for another award for the following summer to study healthcare challenges in religious communities and how religious texts may provide guidance for personal health, which will be incorporated into an honors thesis. After having such a positive experience in the UROP as a student, John continued his involvement by working as a UROP leader during this 3rd and 4th years to help other students get introduced to research-focused, IBL, in order to help them undergo their own intellectual transformations and transition into open inquiry projects.

Josefina Josefina entered FSU through a special program designed to support first-generation, low-income students. In her first year, she enrolled in an introductory psychology course, General Psychology, described earlier, discovering that she was really interested in research and inquiry-based approaches. She then applied and was admitted to UROP in her second year, engaging in research with a social work professor on a project with a lower-income community. Because of her participation in these two programs, Josefina gained the necessary inquiry skills and confidence to follow her curiosity and pursue her own project. Josefina then joined the Global Scholars program and simultaneously applied for a Public Service Research Fellowship, for which she designed a creative research project that took her to South America for two months over the summer. Her project combined her two majors, marketing and English, to help a local women’s artisan cooperative share their stories through photography and narrative while also helping them market their goods both domestically and internationally. Though John and Josefina began college in very different places with varying levels of motivation, the university challenged both of them through IBL as part of their curriculum and through outside programs. Though John graduated with a near perfect GPA, and Josefina finished with a slightly above average GPA, both students experienced profound educational growth that reflects an institutional commitment to equality within education.

Supporting Equality of Education

457

CONCLUSION In this chapter we have argued that IBL can be efficacious in providing diverse and flexible levels of challenge to promote educational growth across a variety of populations. In this way, we have positioned inquiry-based pedagogy as a way to support equality within education, as the practice promotes the academic and personal development of each unique student. We outlined how a university can take a scaffolding approach to embedding IBL throughout the curricular and co-curricular landscape of an institution, presenting an approach that facilitates students’ growth toward open inquiry and the highest levels of scholarship. Within an era of scarce resources, we have selected to focus on programs representing a wide range of cost and scalability so that they can be implemented to best suit individual institutional needs. All students should be challenged to develop to their fullest academic and personal potential. These models offer guidance for how researchfocused IBL can form the foundation to an institutional approach supporting the growth of students at every level. As we move forward, we must all recommit to ensuring substantive equality throughout higher education.

REFERENCES Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26 29. Retrieved from http://learningcenter.nsta.org/files/sc0810_26.pdf Baxtor-Magolda, M. (2009). The activity of meaning-making: A holistic perspective on college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 621 639. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquirybased teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3 18. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056571 Brubacher, J. (1982). On the philosophy of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deignan, T. (2009). Enquiry-based learning: Perspectives on practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 13 28. doi:10.1080/13562510802602467 Elton, L. (2001). Research and teaching: Conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 43 56. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/resource/ rbl/links/lewiseltonpaper.doc Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/assessinghips/documents/TGGrantReport_ FINAL_11_13_13.pdf

458

JOSEPH O’SHEA AND LATIKA L. YOUNG

Gregerman, S. R. (1999). Improving the academic success of diverse students through undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 20(2), 54 59. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67 78). Maidenhead: McGrawHill/Open University Press. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36 74. doi:10.1002/sce.20173 Hutchings, W. (2007). Enquiry-based learning: Definitions and rationales. In Centre for excellence in enquiry-based learning. Manchester: University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/resources/papers/hutchings2007_definingebl.pdf Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kinzie, J. (2012). High-impact practices: Promoting participation for all students. Diversity Democracy, 15(3), 13 14. Retrieved from http://www.diversityweb.org/Diversity Democracy/vol15no3/kinzie.cfm Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183 199. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9269-9 Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.clarion.edu/297592.pdf Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review, 12(2), 27 30. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-sp10/pr-sp10_ Lopatto.cfm Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 55 72. doi:10.1353/rhe.1998.0016 National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. O’Shea, J. (2013). Gap year: How delaying college changes people in ways the world needs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Oliver, R. (2008). Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education, 55(3), 285 301. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9055-7 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Plato. (2008). Republic (R. Waterfield, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spronken-Smith, R., Angelo, T., Matthews, H., O’Steen, B., & Robertson, J. (2007). How effective is inquiry-based learning in linking teaching and research? Paper prepared for an international colloquium on international policies and practices for academic enquiry, Marwell, Winchester, UK, pp. 1 7. Retrieved from http://www.intellcontrol. com/files/EBL/how%20effective%20is%20inquiry-based%20learning%20in%20linking %20teaching%20and%20research.pdf Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based agriscience instruction on student scientific reasoning. Journal of Agriculture Education, 53(4), 156 170. doi:10.5032/ jae.2012.04156

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael Barnett is a professor of science education and technology in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College and the 2012 CASE/ Carnegie Professor of Year for the state of Massachusetts. Dr. Barnett’s work primarily focuses on improving minority youth understanding of scientific concepts and their persistence to obtain a career in a science field. Dr. Barnett has been a principal or co-principal investigator on 11 National Science Foundation grants which has allowed him to explore his research interests that focus on designing learning environments that empower minority students to not only take charge of their own learning but to develop the capacity to become change agents in their community. Dr. Barnett has been an editor of the International Journal of Science Education and is a co-editor of a recently published book on improving geospatial technology professional development programs for teachers. Patrick Blessinger is the founder, executive director, and publisher of the International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association. Patrick is a Fulbright Scholar and Governor’s Teaching Fellow and he is a researcher and authority in the areas of leadership, innovation, student engagement, faculty development, and international education. Patrick has co-edited and co-authored seven textbooks on learning-centered teaching using innovative technologies and one textbook on meaningful learning. Patrick is the editor of two academic journals, the series editor of a book series on innovations in teaching and learning, and the series editor of an anthology series on contemporary teaching and learning. Patrick has taught over 180 college and university courses in management, leadership, economics, and technology and he has managed academic programs at several colleges and universities in the United States and Europe. Patrick consults with institutions on learner engagement, instructional leadership, institutional development, and international education. Patrick earned his doctorate in education from St. John’s University in New York City. Costantino Bonomi is Head of the Botany at MUSE Museo delle Scienze, Trento, Italy. Costantino has an M.Sc. in Biology (Padua, 1997) and an M.Phil. in Botanical Diversity (Reading and Birmingham, 2000). He is 459

460

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

keeper of the herbarium and curator of the museum’s two botanic gardens. His main research interests are plant conservation biology and seed ecology. Since 2001 he is in charge of the museum’s plant conservation projects, and botanic garden management. He promoted and developed the Trentino Seed Bank, now a member of Ensconet, the European Native Seed Conservation Network, funded by the EU under FP6 research infrastructures and leader of NASSTEC an FP7 Marie Curie ITN for native grassland restoration. He contributed to Plant Science Gardens and INQUIRE, two European education projects funded by the EU under FP6 & FP7, Science and Society. He provides the secretariat for RIBES, the Italian network of seed banks. He is the Italian representative in the European Consortium of Botanic Gardens. Gail Bromley worked at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for 38 years, first as a plant taxonomist and later in the education section. She was appointed Head of Department in 1994, developing and managing education provision at Kew, including higher education and professional training, adult education, interpretation/informal education provision, schools programmes and Kew’s first volunteer programme. Gail moved from her formal education role to develop a role as national and international advisor for Kew on botanic garden and biodiversity education where she gained considerable experience in community engagement and capacity building both at home and abroad. She has partnered in three EU informal education projects and has written a number of schools resources. She is a member of the UK-wide Botanic Gardens Education Network committee, and is chair of trustees for National Heritage. Now self-employed as a consultant for heritage and biodiversity education, Gail is currently providing training and editorial services to a number of environmental organisations. John M. Carfora is Associate Provost for Research Advancement and Compliance at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. John holds graduate degrees from a number of universities, including The London School of Economics, Harvard University, and a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University. A recipient of several international awards, John received the Distinguished Service Award from the National Council of University Research Administrators, and was an IREX Fellow to Russia and a Fulbright Scholar to Ireland. Dr. Carfora is a member of “I-Group” a National Academy of Sciences and Government-UniversityIndustry Research Roundtable committee on international research which published the book Examining core elements of international research collaboration (National Academies Press, 2011). John co-authored The Art

About the Authors

461

of funding and implementing ideas: A guide to proposal development and project management (Sage, 2011), and wrote the Foreword to Universitas: The social restructuring of higher education in America (Praeger, 1998). He coauthored a popular article on the New Deal economist Stuart Chase (Harvard Magazine, 2004), and wrote Navigating between teaching, learning and inquiry (HETL, 2011). John regularly consults with colleges and universities in the United States and abroad on academic, interdisciplinary and international research collaborations; comparative education; adult and continuing education; curriculum and instructional development; and leadership and governance in higher education. Carmen Carrion is a graduate student in Educational Psychology. Her primary research interests include investigating how informal science experiences can assist in shifting students’ epistemologies about science. She is particularly interested in learning how knowledge about the environment affects an individual’s personal epistemologies about nature. Hannah-Lee Chalk is the Primary Learning Coordinator at Manchester Museum. She has worked in the museum sector for over a decade in a variety of curatorial, educational and research roles. Hannah has a degree in Geography/Geology (University of Manchester) and an M.Sc. in Museum Studies (University of Leicester), and in 2013 she completed her Ph.D. at the University of Manchester’s Department of Social Anthropology. Tanya Chichekian holds a B.Ed. in Secondary Mathematics Education and an M.A. in Educational Psychology with a specialization in the Learning Sciences from McGill University. She recently completed her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (Learning Sciences concentration). Tanya has received an FQRSC (Fonds de Recherche du Que´bec Socie´te´ et Culture) doctoral fellowship and was selected as the Ph.D. recipient of the 2013 2014 Walter A. and K. Mary Marsh fellowship in Teaching and Learning. She has taught senior level mathematics for three years and was the honors science program’s academic adviser at Dawson College in Montreal for eight years. Her research interests include mathematics and science education, inquiry-based teaching and learning, high-ability learners’ cognitive and metacognitive skills, and the development of learners’ and new teachers’ identity, knowledge, skills, and motivation as inquirers. Kisha N. Daniels has worked extensively in the areas of teaching and learning. She holds a B.A. in elementary education, master’s degrees in school counseling and administration, a specialist certification in curriculum and instruction, and a doctoral degree in education leadership. She is currently

462

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

an Associate Professor at North Carolina Central University in the Department of Education Leadership and has devoted her work to utilizing engaging curriculum to support diverse learning styles. Currently, she teaches courses in school administration, instructional leadership, teacher empowerment, and global education. She is the Principal Investigator of a National Institute of Health grant where she provides leadership to faculty through presentations/workshops that focus on diverse teaching strategies. Kisha is actively involved with building and sustaining community partnerships in an effort to extend the scholarship of teaching through service learning and positively impact teacher quality, collaborative teaching, and community engagement. Dennis J. DeBay joined the faculty at Manhattanville College in 2013 as an assistant professor in mathematics education. His current research interests include using technological learning environments as a mediating factor between the teaching and learning of mathematics in formal and informal learning settings. This includes utilizing geospatial technologies to explore student understanding of real-world data. His other research interest includes teaching urban high school students to use STEM-related skills to explore social justice issues such as sustainability and urban planning in their own communities. Alicia Ory DeNicola is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Oxford College of Emory University. She has been involved in teaching writing in the discipline since 1999 when she was trained to teach her first writing in anthropology course at Brandeis University. Since then she has taught freshman writing seminars at Willamette University and was a faculty postdoctoral Mellon Fellow in the writing in the discipline program at Syracuse University. DeNicola’s combined interest in disciplinary writing, and anthropology as an empirically driven and often deconstructive field, led to an interest in inquiry-based learning as a pedagogy that helps students to own and explore their own learning at the same time that it helps instructors to analyze the success of their particular pedagogies. In the past five years, DeNicola has presented numerous papers, published in Cultural Studies, and is currently working on an edited volume on the ethnography of craft. Justin Dillon is Professor of science and environmental education and Head of the Science and Technology Education Group at King’s College London. From December 2014, Justin will be Head of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol. After taking a degree in

About the Authors

463

chemistry, he trained as a teacher and taught in six London schools, joining King’s in 1989. Justin researches learning in schools, museums and botanic gardens. He took part in the EU-funded INQUIRE project which promoted inquiry-based science education in botanic gardens across Europe. Justin is a trustee of the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom and a member of the RHS Education Committee. He is Secretary of Bankside Open Spaces Trust and was until recently Chair of the London Wildlife Trust. Justin is co-editor of the International Journal of Science Education and was President of the European Science Education Research Association from 2007 11. He has co-edited a number of books including Bad Education and the International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. Michelle R. Edgcomb is a lecturer in biology at Bradley University focused on developing and implementing interdisciplinary, inquiry-based STEM content for in-service and pre-service educators. She served on the planning and evaluation committees for two professional master-of-arts programs in math, science, and technology education. Active in educational outreach, she has received grant funding from the American Association of University Women to develop a program to encourage girls in elementary school to consider careers in the STEM fields. She coordinates several on-going programs that provide STEM activities and college visits for K-8 students in local school districts. Her research involves developing and evaluating effective STEM programs for educators, undergraduates, and pK-12 students. She has published and presented on her scientific and educational research including work with undergraduate and graduate co-authors. Andrew Funston is an Australian academic with a background in communications. He is a Senior Lecturer in the College of Arts at Victoria University and the coordinator of the Graduating Project capstone subject for the Bachelor of Arts degree. Andrew holds a B.A. (honours), M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Melbourne, and has a current research specialisation in foundation pedagogies and higher-education transitions. Recent publications include Funston, Gil and Gilmore (Eds.) (2014) Strong starts, supported transitions and student success (Cambridge Scholars), Funston (2013) Jade’s story: Using in-depth interviews to produce narratives which illuminate students’ complex and challenging higher education transitions in Sage Research Methods Cases (Sage Publishers) and Funston (2012) Nontraditional students making their way in higher education (Youth Research Centre Melbourne).

464

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jeffery Galle is Associate Professor of English and Director of the Center for Academic Excellence at Oxford College of Emory University. Galle’s work in pedagogy and faculty development began in the mid-1990s when he served as Freshman Writing Director at a Louisiana university with the co-authoring of a textbook titled Models for Composition. Galle has led university workshops on teaching excellence as Outstanding Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences (ULM, 2005) and the Scott Professor for Teaching Excellence (1996 1999, ULM) and at Emory as Distinguished Teaching Scholar (2009). His recent publications on teaching, pedagogy, and faculty development have appeared in The Teaching Professor, Teaching Theology and Religion, the International Journal of Teaching and Learning, and the Louisiana English Journal. In the past five years, Galle has presented more than a dozen papers and served on a number of academic panels at AAC&U, AGLS, and ACTC. At Oxford College of Emory University, Galle organizes a number of faculty development initiatives, including the annual Institute for Pedagogy in the Liberal Arts (IPLA). Cheresa Greene-Clemons is a former elementary teacher and currently serves as an Assistant Professor in the Curriculum and Instruction Department at North Carolina Central University. She holds a B.S. in elementary education, master’s degrees in curriculum and instruction, and a doctoral degree in leadership studies with a concentration in multicultural education. She prepares pre-service teachers to become highly qualified teachers through instructional practices, content knowledge subject specific areas, arts/movement integration, and parent involvement practices leading toward culturally responsive teaching. She is very engaged in several P-12 schools within the university community relating to service by way of providing assistance with strategies on how to increase parent involvement/engagement programs, developing/reestablishing school safety patrol programs and fundraising to support student hunger programs. Dr. Greene-Clemons has presented at several conferences on many levels and is published on such topics related to: teacher education, multicultural education, parent involvement, teacher leadership, differentiated instruction, and teambuilding. Bridgette Gunnels is a Lecturer of Spanish at Oxford College of Emory University. She has taught Spanish at all levels in both the public and private university system since 1996. Dr. Gunnels has presented at numerous national and international conferences, including ACTFL and AATSP. Her past pedagogical research includes incorporating creative writing into learning outcomes as a motivator for student participation, the use of

About the Authors

465

technology in the blended classroom, and most recently the use of Boalian drama techniques as methods of encouraging deep learning in her Spanish courses. Current interests center on how the combination of High Impact learning practices increase student buy-in to her Spanish courses by establishing content and authentic practice opportunities that blend for a deeper experience in the language and culture for the student, including experiences outside of the classroom. Brenda Harmon is a Senior Lecturer at Oxford College where she is responsible for teaching the organic chemistry laboratory courses. She has developed a passion for designing learning experiences that foster independence and scientific thinking skills through problem-based and inquiry-driven laboratories. Harmon has presented at national and regional conferences on chemical education, and currently has a publication pending in the Journal of College Science Teaching. She has been honored by students with the Phi Eta Sigma Teaching Award, and has been the recipient of the Williams Award for Distinguished Teaching, the highest award for excellence in teaching at Emory University. Jaimie Hoffman currently serves as an adjunct faculty member at CSU Channel Islands, CSU Northridge, and Messiah College, teaching face-toface and online courses in assessment, communication diversity, and leadership to undergraduate and graduate students. Additionally, Jaimie works as a part-time Strategic Development Analyst for the Vice President for Students Affairs office at CSU Channel Islands where she assists with division-wide assessment and training initiatives. Jaimie has had the opportunity to assist with creating both curricular and co-curricular programs including a multi-phase, outcomes-based leadership certificate program and an online doctoral program. During her time as a student affairs professional, Jaimie worked in many Student Affairs functional areas including orientation, new student programs, leadership programs, residential education, judicial affairs, campus recreation, and career services. Jaimie received her Ed.D. in Leadership from the University of California Los Angeles; her research interests include assessment in higher education, leadership development among college students and use of technology for advancing student learning and meeting student needs. Peter J. Hubber is Associate Professor of Science Education at Deakin University and is director of the Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Teaching (Secondary) double-degree program. He has researched and written on student learning in science and teacher professional learning in science

466

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

education. In recent years Hubber has been involved in several research projects as Chief Investigator. The Australian Research Council (ARC) funded project, “The role of representation in learning science,” developed a directed-inquiry approach bringing classroom practice closer to scientific practices. A current ARC funded project, “Creating representation in science pedagogy,” is extending this work to multiple schools in Victoria and New South Wales (Australia). Another current ARC funded project, “Developing digital pedagogies in inquiry science through a cloud-based teaching and learning environment,” is an exploration of digital pedagogies associated with an inquiry-based cloud delivery of a socio-scientific issue curriculum. Hubber has a strong record in professional development, working with elementary and secondary teachers and schools in local, state and federal initiatives. He is associate editor of the Journal of Science Teacher Education. Suzanne Kapelari is Head of the Austrian Education Competence Centre, Biology, University of Vienna, Austria. She was coordinator of two European projects Plant Science Gardens and INQUIRE funded by the EU 6th and 7th Framework Programme, Science and Society. She holds a Doctorate in Biology, an M.A. in Education and a teacher degree in Biology and Environmental Education. She has been teaching at school, at University and the Botanical Garden of the University of Innsbruck for more than 12 years. In 2013 she worked as visiting researcher at King’s College London, UK, for four months. Before moving to the University of Vienna, she was Assistant Professor of Science and Environmental Education at the University of Innsbruck. Areas of expertise: Learning outside the classroom/botanic garden education, inquiry-based science education, pre and in-service teacher education. Jill Leafstedt is the Director of Teaching and Learning Innovation at CSU Channel Islands. In this capacity, Jill facilitates learning experiences with faculty across campus to help them integrate technology into their teaching. The common goals across all of these experiences is to improve student engagement and increase student to faculty interactions. Jill comes to this position from Education. As a special educator and teacher educator, Jill’s work has always been focused on meeting the unique needs of individual learners. Jill received her doctorate in Special Education, Disabilities and Risk from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her current research interests include student learning with the blended and online learning and the faculty experience with online learning. She is also interested in effectiveness of faculty development models.

About the Authors

467

David Leat is the Executive Director of the Research Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT) at Newcastle University (England) and Professor of Curriculum Innovation. His 13-year geography school teaching career took him round the country, before becoming the geography teacher trainer at Newcastle from 1989 to 2000 and subsequently a researcher. His research interests started with teaching thinking skills. In subsequent projects, he has been involved in research on Learning2Learn, metacognition and teacher coaching. Between 2001 and 2004, David worked on secondment for a government school improvement strategy, where he wrote many teacher development modules, including Big Concepts, Thinking Skills, Reflection and Coaching. His current projects revolve around Inquiry/Project Based Curriculum and Community Curriculum Making, in which schools, teachers, students and school partners have far more control over and responsibility for the curriculum. David has worked with Professor Sugata Mitra on both Self Organised Learning Environments (SOLEs) and Skype Grannies/Seniors. Nicolette Lee is Associate Professor and the Associate Director, Tertiary Scholarship at Victoria University and an Australian Office for Learning and Teaching National Senior Teaching Fellow. Her fellowship, on the topic of Capstone curriculum across disciplines: synthesising theory, practice, and policy to provide practical tools for curriculum design, includes international research projects and collaborations as well as the development of tools and frameworks for capstone design and assessment. Previously Academic Director of Swinburne Professional Learning, she has substantial experience in teaching and leading university-wide change projects, including institution-wide curriculum and technology renewal, and the implementation of capstone experiences within and across disciplines. She has also led a number of institutional projects in campus development, academic development and learning technology implementation. With a background in interdisciplinary design and a Ph.D. in education, her research includes work on project based learning, evaluation of learning environments and systems approaches to curriculum and curriculum management. Ellen Litkowski is a graduate student in Educational Psychology at GSU. She is interested in the relationship between young children’s cognitive and social development. More specifically, she is currently investigating whether preschooler’s social emotional competency might serve as a mediator between their inhibitory control and their ability to revise a hypothesis.

468

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

James M. Lucas works in the Office Undergraduate Education at Michigan State University (MSU) as Assistant Dean for Global Education and Curriculum. In this capacity, he consults with campus departments and helps them connect curricula to the institution’s learning outcomes, develop assessment methods to evidence this learning, and create experiential opportunities that enhance the undergraduate experience. He also coordinates, in cooperation with the Office of Study Abroad, MSU’s first-year seminar abroad program. This program provides students the opportunity to have a short-term global experience before starting classes at MSU. He also represents his office at campus meetings related to international students, study abroad, and intercultural concerns, and he maintains a connection back to the College of Agricultural and Natural Resources, where he teaches classes and leads a summer program to Australia related to sustainability. James completed his Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education in 2009 with foci on global education and curriculum development. His dissertation investigated male student participation in study abroad programming. Kelly D. McConnaughay teaches organismal biology, plant ecology, and science for educators. She is an active advocate for research experiences for undergraduate students and for increasing the STEM literacy for learners of all ages and all disciplines. Her research laboratory investigates plant physiological, growth and biomass allocation responses to environmental stresses. Her research program is funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and has included over 80 undergraduate students in her 20 years at Bradley. Her research with undergraduate students has resulted in publications or presentations with no fewer than 65 student coauthors. She co-developed an extramurally funded, multi-institutional research training program that teams faculty members and senior researchers, graduate, undergraduate, high school students and K-12 educators as research collaborators. She has served on numerous external reviews of college and university Biology/Environmental Science Departments or programs. She is a frequent grant reviewer and panelist for NSF (Bio, EHR Directorates). She is the founding co-director of Bradley’s Center for STEM Education. Tracy Miller, Ed.M., is the Online Teaching Coordinator in the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. Since she has joined faculty development the center has won three Blackboard Catalyst Awards for Staff Development, Teaching and Learning, and Exemplary Course design. She has been a

About the Authors

469

research and inquiry advisor for some of the brightest high school students in Illinois when she was employed at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, an educational laboratory for imagination and inquiry. During that time she was also part of the leadership team charged with stimulating excellence in inquiry-based teaching and learning across the state of Illinois and beyond. As a current Supporting Learning and Technology in Education (SLATE) member, she is able to learn and strategize with higher education professionals from many colleges and universities across the Midwest. Tracy received her masters from the College of Education at the University of Illinois, and she remains a frequent presenter at state and international conferences on education, educational technologies and faculty development. In 2013, she was part of the groundbreaking team that designed, developed, and implemented Northern Illinois University’s first Massive Open Online Course “Perspectives on Disability.” Sherri J. Morris is active in research, teaching and service in the Department of Biology at Bradley University. She currently holds the rank of professor and has recently taken the position as Co-Director of the Center for STEM Education. Over the last 13 years, she has received grants for basic and applied research, and informal science education from the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Peoria NEXT Innovation Center, and Illinois American Water. She has also received grant funds to support research with high school students, undergraduates, graduate students, and teachers. Since arriving at Bradley University, she has worked mainly on the impacts of land use change on soil organic matter dynamics. She has an active research lab and works extensively with undergraduates in research on local soils, including studies at Sand Ridge State Forest and Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge, and more distant sites such as the Nebraska National Forest and at Mt. St. Helens in Washington. Her STEM education research focuses on evaluating student engagement and achievement in biology core courses. She has more than 20 peer-reviewed publications on her scientific and scholarly research and 15 book chapters many that include undergraduate or graduate authors. She has mentored more than 80 undergraduates, 10 in-service teachers, 8 pre-service teachers and 9 high school students in directed, supervised and independent research. Menaka Munro is the Learning Manager at Manchester Museum. She has worked in a number of museums in a learning and engagement capacity including the Pitt Rivers and Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Menaka is also currently Project Manager on the redevelopment

470

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

of Manchester Museum’s third floor, with the remit of creating a public space themed around research. Menaka has a degree in Biology (University of Oxford) and an M.A. in Museum Studies (University of Manchester). Joseph O’Shea serves as the Director of Florida State University’s Center for Undergraduate Research and Academic Engagement and is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Philosophy. He received a B.A. in philosophy and social science from Florida State University, where he served as the student body president and a university trustee. A Truman and Rhodes Scholar, he has a master’s degree in comparative social policy and a Ph.D. in education from the University of Oxford. Joseph has been involved with developing education and health-care initiatives in communities in the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa. His research and publications are primarily focused on the civic and moral development of people, and his book, Gap Year: How Delaying College Changes People in Ways the World Needs, was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2013. Joseph also serves as an elected Councilor for the Council on Undergraduate Research, the leading national organization for the promotion of undergraduate research and scholarship. Amie K. Patchen is a doctoral student at Boston College, studying Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on science education. She previously taught high school chemistry and Earth science in Chicago. She is interested in informal science education and engaging people with science topics. Beth Pilawski currently serves as an Instructional Designer for Mount Washington College, as well as an adjunct English Instructor and Blackboard trainer for SUNY Finger Lakes Community College. Her main areas of interest are mastery and competency-based learning, badging, the gamification of education, and Open Educational Resources. In 2012, Beth was the PI on the SUNY IITG: Learner eXperience Designers (LXD) Exploring the Feasibility of Badging, and co-created OER-101, an open course on locating, creating, and licensing OERs that included automated badging for participants. Beth extended her badging exploration to the SUNY Tools of Engagement Project in 2013 and served as Co-PI in TOEP’s first and second rounds of funding. Additionally, Beth consults with SMEs, faculty, and content providers to develop dynamic, non-term, competency-based courses driven by measurable outcomes. Beth received her MAT in English from Agnes Scott College and her Instructional Design Certificate from the SUNY Learning Network.

About the Authors

471

Alicia Prowse has worked as an academic staff developer in a university Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching for the last seven years. She works with staff including formal and informal staff development and works on collaborative teaching and learning projects across a large Higher Education institution to enable the best possible student experience. Prior to that she taught Research Methods to Information and Communications students; Ecology and Biology to B.Sc. Biology students; collaborated over the last 10 years with a visual artist and taught Environmental Science and Biology to Further Education students. She has a Ph.D. in Plant Ecology and Senior Fellowship of the UK Higher Education Academy. She has also worked as a woodland surveyor, a professional actor and taught English to speakers of other languages. Research interests are interdisciplinary collaboration, student motivation, staff development and global citizenship. R. Martin Reardon is Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership Department of the College of Education at East Carolina University (ECU), Greenville, NC. Martin is currently ECU’s Principal Investigator for the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Education Doctorate (EdD) program, and the Chair of the Publications Committee for CPED. He is immersed in collaboratively designing and refining the curriculum for the CPED-inspired EdD at ECU, which commenced in fall 2014. Martin was elected Chair of AERA’s School-University Collaborative Research (SUCR) SIG, as of April 2014. This honor follows his earlier three-year term as Chair of SUCR that ended in 2011. Martin maintains an active research agenda focusing on integrating three approaches to systemic school reform in the middle school context. Thematically, Martin’s research focuses on learning-centered leadership, quality and equality in education, and technology-infused learning (with particular interest in exploring digital simulation-based learning in the context of educational leadership). Elaine Regan is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Education and Professional Studies, King’s College London. Elaine read biology and chemistry while completing a concurrent teacher education degree. She received a doctorate in chemistry education from the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests include student participation in science, inquiry-based science education, effective teaching, professional development for teachers and informal science educators, and learning outside the classroom. She is currently working in partnership with Professor Louise Archer and the Science Museum, London, on the

472

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Enterprising Science project. Recent publications include the co-authored book Effective Classroom Practice (2014), Open University Press. Anna Reid is a Teaching Fellow at Newcastle University, where she currently leads three-core postgraduate modules in Education: Research in Practice, Critical Thinking about Research Methodology, and Practices of Enquiry. Anna also leads two postgraduate modules in Educational Leadership and is Deputy Director of educational leadership development programmes for the North East Teaching Schools Partnership in the United Kingdom. Anna’s doctorate, entitled ‘Teachers Developing Understanding of Enquiry-Based Learning’, explores the interactions of teachers’ dialogical selves when faced with implementing an enquiry-based curriculum and formative assessment framework for enquiry skills in a secondary school in the North-East of England. Her findings, relating to concepts of ‘contractual’ and ‘internal’ teacher agency, provide a helpful framework for further exploring the relationships between policy and practice, as well as teachers and students in schools. Maggie Renken is Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at Georgia State University, USA. Maggie’s work focuses on understanding students’ scientific thinking. Her research explores the acquisition of science knowledge, its underlying mechanisms, and their development. Findings are intended to inform approaches for assessing and improving scientific thinking and learning. Bruce M. Shore is Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at McGill University in Montreal, Fellow of the American Educational Research Association, and a licensed teacher and psychologist. For 21 years he was jointly appointed in McGill’s teaching-improvement unit. He served as Department Chair, McGill Association of University Teachers President, and Dean of Students. Awards include the National Association for Gifted Students Distinguished Scholar, The McGill Faculty of Education Distinguished Teaching Award, the David Thomson Award for Graduate Supervision and Teaching, and the Principal’s Prize for Excellence in Teaching. His research is on intellectual giftedness and on inquiry-based teaching and learning. Paige E. Sindt is the Director of Academic Affairs at CEA Study Abroad in Phoenix, AZ, where oversees and actively manages the day-to-day operations of CEA’s Academic Affairs and provides leadership for study abroad programs. Paige guides the development of curriculum, academic policies, and programming for all CEA Study Abroad Centers in six countries. In

About the Authors

473

her role, Paige also oversees faculty and staff training, career development, internships, School of Record and accreditation. Paige joined CEA as the Director of Custom Programs in 2008, where she was responsible for the development of university group and faculty-led study abroad initiatives, including overall program planning, development, and management for programs offered in partnership with faculty and staff from over 60 U.S. colleges and universities. Prior to joining CEA, Dr. Sindt served as an instructor and administrator at Arizona State University for over five years, working in study abroad, student development, and academic affairs, where she developed a passion for working with faculty training and development initiatives to enhance and support student learning. Paige has taught undergraduate and graduate courses at ASU in Leadership, Qualitative Research Methods, Higher Education and Critical Literacy. Paige earned her Doctorate (Ed.D.) in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies in Higher Education at Arizona State University. Her dissertation examines institutional impact and student learning outcomes of participation in study abroad and the critical roles of institutional policy and faculty engagement in creating global learners. Dr. Sindt also holds a Master’s degree in Higher and Postsecondary Education from Arizona State University. Originally from Iowa, Paige earned her B.A. in Psychology and Spanish from Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa. Shufang Shi Strause is an associate professor of instructional technology at SUNY Cortland. She teachers face-to-face, online, and blended undergraduate and graduate courses, targeted to preservice and inservice educators. A teacher scholar, her teaching and research go hand-in-hand. She consistently publishes and presents at the regional, national and international level. She was a recent recipient of Excellence in Research, Scholarship, and Outreach award at SUNY Cortland. She was the PI on the SUNY IITG (http://www.suny.edu/provost/IITGdescrip.cfm#t2bburns): FourCollege Consortium for Innovative Technology Integration. Her goal is to seek answers to the questions in education where both she and her students will be free of boundaries, acting as reflective, creative, self-disciplined, goal-oriented learners and passionate about learning throughout life. Eric Strauss is Presidential Professor of Biology and Executive Director of the Center for Urban Resilience at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. With collaborative research specialties in animal behavior, endangered species management, urban ecosystem dynamics and science education, Dr. Strauss has extended the model for faculty scholarship by co-founding the Urban Ecology Institute in Boston while he served as a

474

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

faculty member at Boston College. Both Centers provide educational, research, and restoration programs to underserved neighborhoods and their residents. In addition, Dr. Strauss is the Founding Editor of a webbased peer-reviewed journal, Cities and the Environment and Senior Author of the high school science textbook, Biology The Web of Life. His research includes collaborative long-term studies of coyotes, white tailed deer, crows, turtles, and other vertebrates, with a specialty in understanding the ecology of wildlife in urban areas. Roberta (Robin) Sullivan is an Online Learning & Innovative Instruction Specialist for the Office of Educational Innovation and Assessment at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. Her role involves the development, implementation, and evaluation of online learning initiatives. She serves as a resource to faculty and departments seeking to supplement instruction in the development of high quality online courses, hybrid courses, and degrees; and facilitates a university-wide culture of exploration and dialogue around online education. She also serves as an Instructional Designer and assists faculty to achieve academic excellence through the use of emerging technologies and instructional innovation. She received a Master of Library Science (MLS) degree and a Master of Arts in the Humanities (MAH) interdisciplinary degree with a focus in education and communication design from the University at Buffalo. Additional information can be found on her personal homepage at: http://buffalo.edu/∼rrs. Ulrike Thomas is a Research Associate in the Research Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT) at Newcastle University. Before embarking on a career in research she was a Primary School teacher for nine years. Her interest in inquiry-based learning has developed as a result of her involvement in a range of research projects which have examined the impact of innovative pedagogy and curricular on students and teachers. She is currently working with a consortium of schools that are developing an inquiry/project based approach to teaching and learning. She is also project managing the Skype Seniors Research project which is exploring the impact on curriculum and pedagogy of intergenerational learning and new ‘voices’ in the classroom. Ulrike was the co-ordinating editor of the Learning and Teaching Update (Optimus Education) for seven years a publication for secondary school teachers that showcased inspiring research and teacher practice. Cindi A. Tysick, Associate Librarian and faculty member of the Graduate School at the University at Buffalo, is chair of the UB Libraries Arts &

About the Authors

475

Sciences Instruction team and subject liaison to Anthropology and Communication. She teaches the first online version of her library’s twocredit course “Library Research Methods” utilizing emerging technology tools to engage undergraduates in their learning. Her research areas include faculty professional development, online instruction to undergraduates, and badges as a learning motivator. Since 2012 she has worked with colleagues from various State University of New York campuses on a grant funded project to train faculty on using Web2.0 tools to create relevant and pedagogically sound teachable moments that engage online learners from across various types of post-secondary education models. Cindi graduated from the University at Buffalo in 2001 with a M.L.S. and Advanced Certificate in Educational Technology. Currently she is pursuing Sloan-C certification as an Online Teacher. Cherie van Putten is a Training Associate for the University Center for Training and Development at Binghamton University. She designs and facilitates face-to-face and online workshops on computer applications, business skills and instructional design for faculty and staff. She also assists her students individually with several technology topics. She received her Masters of Education in Adult Education from Penn State University’s World Campus where she developed an interest in helping faculty create powerful distance and blended learning experiences for students. Asimina Vergou is the Head of Education at Botanic Gardens Conservation International. Her work is focused on capacity building of botanic gardens in public engagement. Asimina has been involved in the coordination and evaluation of projects ranging from teacher training in Inquiry-Based Science Education to developing the social role of botanic gardens. Her personal interest lies in organisational change, promoting informal science education and turning the public on to plants. She was awarded her Ph.D. in environmental education from the University of Bath. Her doctorate research was an ethnographic case study on botanic gardens school collaborations and students’ environmental learning experiences. Asimina has also worked as an educator in a Greek botanic garden and at the Natural History Museum, London and her practitioner’s experience informed her research and current work. Nathan Whitley-Grassi currently serves as the Faculty Instructional Technologist based at the Niagara Frontier Center (NFC) of Empire State College (ESC). In that role, he works with faculty in the NFC and across the College, sharing pedagogically sound teaching methodology through

476

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

the use of educational technology tools. Whitley-Grassi is also a core faculty member for the Masters in Learning and Emerging Technologies program at ESC, where he teaches courses on Assessment and Learning Analytics, as well as teaching undergraduate courses in instructional design. He is also on the faculty at Niagara University. He has extensive experience in teaching courses in face-to-face, blended, and online formats as well as providing faculty and professional development opportunities in higher education environments. Julia Willison joined Botanic Gardens Conservation International In 1989 to set up an education programme that would encourage botanic gardens to include education within their mission. This involved launching an international news review for educators, setting up the International Diploma Course in Botanic Garden Education with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and establishing a triennial international education congress. More recently, Julia co-led INQUIRE, a European project to develop the capacity of botanic gardens and museums to deliver inquiry based science education and spearheaded an initiative entitled Communities in Nature: Growing the Social Role of Botanic Gardens, which challenges gardens to become more relevant to society. Julia now works as the Head of Participation for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew where she is responsible for Learning. Julia also leads on a programme entitled ‘Grow Wild’ which aims to reach 30 million people in the UK inspiring them to grow native wild flowers. Gina N. Wong shares her passion of literacy, technology and inquiry-based learning across all learning communities. She is a facilitator and participant in numerous inquiry-based groups within the Vancouver school district and at a provincial level. Her dedication and commitment to advance her education practice was recognized by the Prime Minister’s Award of Teaching Excellence in 2013. Currently, Gina is a doctoral candidate in the Languages, Cultures and Literacies at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Her research focuses on examining pedagogical shifts and multi-literacies in teacher practice and student learning with the implementation of technological tools such as interactive whiteboards, web based tools and hand held devices. Gina has over 20 years of teaching experience from Junior Kindergarten to Grade Five in the public schools of Vancouver, British Columbia. Presently, she is the Early Literacy/Early Intervention Consultant to support teachers in early intervention of struggling readers and classroom literacy practice across the school district. Gina has mentored and instructed teacher candidates in the Professional

About the Authors

477

Development Program and practicing teachers in the Field Studies Graduate Diploma Program at Simon Fraser University. Diana J. Wong-MingJi teaches strategy and entrepreneurship at Eastern Michigan University. With over 30 years of teaching experience in secondary education and higher educational institutions, she applies an inquiry based learning (IBL) approach to teaching both undergraduate and graduate students. She served on the Instructional Effectiveness Committee for the Management Department and Chair of Graduate Council to provide faculty input for graduate program development at her University. Her research interests include the relationship between IBL’s pedagogical process for developing higher order learning and professional/personal identity development of leaders. She is also exploring IBL as a professional coaching skill for leaders to expand their competences for leading high performing teams. Diana application of IBL extends from the classroom to clients as a corporate trainer and consultant as the CEO and President of Sensei Change Associates, LLC. Latika L. Young is the Associate Director of Florida State University’s Center for Undergraduate Research and Academic Engagement. She received a B.A. in Dance and Environmental Studies from Swarthmore College, an MA in American Dance Studies from FSU, and an Ed.M. in International Educational Development from Columbia University’s Teachers College. After completing a Fulbright in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2008 2009, she received a Foreign Language Acquisition Scholarship to study Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian at Columbia University and a Critical Language Scholarship to study Turkish in Bursa, Turkey, in 2011. Her research is primarily focused on Southeast Europe and Turkey, peace/postconflict education, and artistic practices for social change, and her master’s thesis examined how museums function in the reconciliation process within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

AUTHOR INDEX Arnett, J. J. 397, 415 Arnold-Forster, K. 248 Ashwin, C. 225, 230 231 Association of American Colleges, Universities, and National Leadership Council (US), 6 Association of American Colleges, 394 395, 398 Astin, A. 394 Atkinson, M. P. 27 Augustine, N. R. 6, 394 Aulls, M. W. 74 76, 83 84, 86, 88 89 Auls, S. 125 Australian Council for Educational Research, 321 Avon, N. 396 Azevedo, R. 323 324

Abd-El-Khalick, F. 149 Abramson, L. 372 Adams Becker, S. 321, 323, 326 327, 330, 332 Adams, D. 124 Adderley, K. 225, 230 231 Adler, S. 331 Afflerbach, P. 404 Agogino, A. M. 329 330 Ainsworth, S. 205 Aiyegbayot, O. 26 Akerson, V. L. 180 Akkerman, S. 117 Alberti, S. J. M. M. 246 Albright, K. 345 Aldunate, R. 380 Alevizou, P. 381 Alexander, B. 381 Allen, I. E. 422 Allison, P. 27 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 272 Anderson, L. W. 212 Anderson, P. 380 381 Anderson, R. 202 Anderson, T. 79 80 Andree, A. 194 Angelo, T. 225, 442 Anstey, L. M. 310 Anthony, W. S. 27 Arend, B. D. 403 408, 412, 414 Ariasi, N. 153 Armstrong, N. 125

Bailey, J. 224 Baker, W. E. 34 Ballard, H. L. 267 Banchi, H. 27, 443 Banta, L. 322, 330 Barclay Hamir, H. 400 Barczyk, C. 380 Barnett, M. 10 Barnett, R. 224, 313 Barr, R. B. 396, 405 Barrar, H. 177, 179 Barron, B. 103 Barrows, H. S. 27 Barton, J. 177 479

480

Bass, B. M. 51 Batchelor, J. 225 Baxtor-Magolda, M. 440 Baxter Magolda, M. B. 225, 230 231, 404 Becker, R. R. 27 Behnagh, R. F. 323 324 Belbin, R. M. M. 303 Beldarrain, Y. 378 Bell, R. 27, 443 Beltyukova, S. 194 Benefield, P. 177 178 Bereiter, C. 5 Berkowitz, A. R. 358 359 Berliner, D. 102 Bernstein, B. 105 106, 113 Berryman, C. 359 Bhandari, R. 395 Biesta, G. 117 Biggs, J. 230 Birman, B. F. 180, 359 360 Blanchfield, J. 124 Blessinger, P. 4, 7 Bloom, B. S. 408 Blumenfeld, B. 74 Boldrin, A. 153 Bollinger, D. U. 423 Bonomi, C. 191, 194 Borkan, J. 331 Borko, H. 194, 360, 367, 372 Bottoms, G. 343, 346 Boud, D. 293 294, 313 Boulos, M. N. 381 Bowen, W. G. 424 Bowers, J. 360 Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University 87, 345 Bradburne, J. 268 Bradbury, P. 225, 230 231

AUTHOR INDEX

Bragg, R. 177 Bransford, J. D. 5 Brantley-Dias, L. 148 Bray, J. 294, 307 Bray, S. 230 Brent, R. 87 Breslyn, W. 202 Brew, A. 88, 442 Brickman, P. 125 Briggs, D. 273 Bringle, R. G. 57 British Council, 395 Brockman, J. 394 Bromley, G. 191, 194 Brown, A. L. 5 Brown, C. 224 Brown, J. S. 360 Brown, P. 248 Brownell, S. E. 273 Brubacher, J. 440 Bruder, R. 292 Bruner, J. S. 6, 12 Buckenmeyer, J. 380 Buckland, L. A. 149 Buckner, E. 26, 28 Bueschel, A. C. 344, 355 Bufton, S. 401 Bullard, J. O. 292 Bullough, R. V., Jr. 64 Burgin, S. 273 Burn, B. B. 399 400 Business-Higher Education Forum, 359 Butler, D. 224 Butler, D. L. 27 28 Bybee, R. W. 202 Callahan, C. M. 79 83, 85, 89 Caporale, L. 322, 330 Capps, D. K. 177, 214

481

Author Index

Carber, S. 85 Carey, S. 149, 152 Carfora, J. M. 4 Carlson, J. 399 400 Carlson, J. A. 27 Carlson, J. S. 399 400 Carr, N. 394, 397 Casili, C. 386 Caspari, A. 230 Castle, S. R. 423 Cazden, C. B. 28 Centre for Excellence in EnquiryBased Learning, 249 Century, J. 148, 150, 176 CERI, 396 Chan, J. Y. 358 Chang, M. J. 273 Chao, G. T. 396 Chow, N. 310 Cheney, R. 151 Chichekian, T. 11, 74 76, 83 84 Chingos, M. M. 424 Chinn, C. A. 125, 149, 152 153, 155, 171, 292, 304 Chinn, C. 5 6, 153, 225 Choi, M. Y. 177 178 Christiansen, T. K. 426 Ciardiello, A. V. 28 Clark, J. 109 Clark, R. 5, 26, 226, 331 Clark, R. E. 292, 313 Clarke, J. 225 Clarke-Midura, J. 325 Clegg, S. 303, 401 Cleverly, D. 303 Climack, R. 358 Closs, G. P. 27 Clouder, L. 233 Cobb, P. 360

Cochran-Smith, M. 26 Cocking, R. 5 Coleman, P. K. 399 400 Collay, M. 27 Collins, A. 360 Collins, W. 51, 63 Connor-Linton, J. 400 401 Conole, G. 381 Constas, M. A. 177, 214 Cooperrider, D. L. 29 Corbin, J. 347, 350 Coulthard, M. 104 Cox, R. 205 Crawford, B. A. 177, 214 Crespi, E. 322, 330 Crow, M. 413 Csermely, P. 176 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 250 Cuccio-Schirripa, S. 287 Culross, R. R. 80, 85 Cuneo, C. 9 Curiosities, O. N. 28 Czerniak, C. 194 Daloz Parks, S. 4 Daniels, G. 64, 66 Daniels, K. 64, 66 Daniels, K. N. 10, 64 Dankenbring, C. A. 251 254 Darling-Hammond, L. 26, 41, 103, 179, 194 Davis, B. G. 132 Davis, J. R. 403 408, 412, 414 DCMS & DfEE, 247, 258 de Jong, T. 27 de Vries, B. 214 Dean, C. 360 Dean, D. R. 397, 401 402 Deane, J. 230 Deardorff, D. K. 6, 394, 399

482

DeBay, D. J. 10 Dede, C. 325 DeHaan, R. L. 272 Deignan, T. 442 Delcourt, M. A. B. 76 Denick, D. L. 251 254 Derounian, J. 225, 230 Desimone, L. 180, 359 360 Desimone, L. M. 194 deSiva Lamberg, T. 360 Dewey, J. 12, 340, 344 345 Dias, M. 148 Dickinson, K. 27 Dierking, L. 252 Dierking, L. D. 250 251, 253 Dillon, J. 177 180, 182, 191, 194 diSessa, A. 205 Doherty, A. 4 Doig, B. 40 Donoghue, F. 423 424 Dooley, K. E. 380 Dorie, B. L. 251 254 Dosch, D. 323 Drayton, B. 12 Dubus, N. 346 Duffett, A. 340 341, 343 Duffy, M. 323 324 Duffy, T. M. 292 Duguid, P. 360 Duncan, R. 5 6, 225 Duncan, R. G. 155, 292, 304 Dunlap, N. 124 Dunston, Y. L. 64 Dwyer, M. M. 395, 399 400 Dym, C. L. 329 330 Eagan, M. K. 273 Edelson, D. 274 Edwin Ho, M. H. 310 Eick, C. J. 148

AUTHOR INDEX

Eiteljorg, E. 360, 367, 372 Elby, A. 152 Elder, M. 30 31 Ellis, R. 144 Elmore, R. F. 341 342 Elsen, M. 88 Elton, L. 442 Emirbayer, M. 114 Enersen, D. L. 86 Erickson, H. L. 132 Eris, O. 329 330 Erwin, T. D. 399 400 Espino, M. M. 346 Estrada, V. 321, 323, 326 327, 330, 332 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate L Science, Economy and Society, 75 European Commission, 176 Evans, M. P. 52 Evans, N. J. 402, 404, 441 Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry, 358, 367 Falchikov, N. 313 Falk, J. 12 Falk, J. H. 250 251, 253, 266 Farkas, S. 340 341, 343 Farrugia, C. A. 395 Fast, J. 202 Felder, R. M. 87 Feldhusen, J. F. 86 Feldman, L. 380 Ferguson, D. 251 254 Field, R. 224 Fink, D. 397, 402, 405 407, 412 414 Finkelstein, D. 178 Finley, A. 441

483

Author Index

Fischer, K. 399 Fishman, B. J. 360 Ford, M. 205 Ford, N. 11 12, 179 Forman, E. A. 205 Forney, D. S. 402, 404, 441 Foust, R. C. 80, 89 Frederiksen, C. H. 74 76, 83 84 Freeman, A. 321, 323, 326 327, 330, 332 Freeman, J. 225, 230 231 Freire, P. 12 French, E. 224 Frey, D. D. 329 330 Fry, B. 343, 346 Fry, G. 401 Fry, R. 27 Fukami, T. 273 Fung, I. 177, 179 Gagnon, G. W. 27 Gahan, L. R. 124 Gale, J. 27 Galileo Education Network, 248 Galileo Educational Network, 6 Gallagher, L. P. 360 Gallimore, R. 360, 369 370 Garabedian, K. J. 344, 355 Garcia, G. A. 273 Gardner, H. 250 Gardner, P. D. 396 Garet, M. S. 180, 359 360 Garraty, J. A. 399 400 Garrison, D. R. 424 Gasiewski, J. A. 273 Gazda-Grace, P. 80, 82 Germann, P. J. 125 Gess-Newsome, J. 27 Gijlers, H. 27

Glaser, B. G. 347, 350 Godley, J. 180 Goh, K. L. 293 Golde, C. M. 344, 355 Gonslaves, A. 273 Gonzalez, J. J. 28 Goodlad, S. 225, 230 231 Gordin, D. 274 Gormally, C. 125 Gowler, D. 122 Grabe, C. 425 426 Grabe, M. 425 426 Graham, E. A. 178 Grant, K. 88 Gredler, M. 6 Green, E. 331 Greene, J. 225, 230 231 Greene-Clemons, C. 10 Greenhow, C. 380 Greenleaf, R. K. 346 Gregerman, S. R. 449 Groves, S. 40 Gruppuso, p. 331 Guido, F. M. 402, 404, 441 Gulbahar, Y. 225 Guskey, T. R. 182, 191 Gyles, P. D. T. 76 Hallar, B. 125 Hamalainen, S. 102 Hamilton, C. H. 52 Hammer, D. 152 Han, S. Y. 367 Handelzalts, A. 214 Haney, J. 194 Hanuscin, D. L. 180 Harasim, L. 422 Harbor, J. 202 Harel, I. 12 Harkavy, I. 346, 355

484

Harland, T. 27 Harley, J. M. 323 324 Harnish, D. 9 Hartley, K. 219 Hartley, M. 346, 355 Hartmann, H. 321 Haskins, S. 125 Haslam, F. 203 Hatcher, J. A. 57 Hawkins, J. 425 Hayden, M. 80 Healey, M. 27, 88, 224 225, 230, 442 Heath, B. P. 30 31 Heimlich, J. E. 263 Heina¨mies, K. 248 Helle, L. 231 Hemmo, V. 176 Henderson, S. 178 Herbst, P. 360, 367 Herman, B. C. 56 Herrington, J. 322 Herron, M. D. 12 Hertberg-Davis, H. 79 83, 85, 89 Hess, F. M. 340 341 Heterick, B. 423 Hewson, P. 179, 214, 219 Hickey, D. T. 9 Hiebert, J. 360, 369 370 Hines, S. 332 Hirumi, A. 27 Hixon, E. 380 Hmelo-Silver, C. 5 6, 27, 225 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. 292, 304 Hobbs, V. 401 Hockings, C. 116 Hofer, B. K. 149 150 Hogan, K. 150, 358 359 Hooper-Greenhill, E. 247, 250

AUTHOR INDEX

Horton, R. 26 Hu, W. C. 380 Hua, O. 85 Hubber, P. 202 203, 218 Huberman, A. M. 182 Hudspith, B. 27 28 Huff, J. 251 254 Hughes, J. E. 380 Hughes, T. M. 273 Huitt, W. 66 Humphreys, D. 398 Hunt, A. N. 27 Hunter, A. B. 273, 442 Hurst, J. 396 Hurtado, S. 273 Hutchings, W. 6, 443 Hyland, T. 296 IBO International Baccalaureate Organization, 78 Illinois Online Network, 424 IMSA Problem-Based Learning Network, 326 Indiana University Bloomington, School of Education, 345 Inglis, S. 9 Ingraham, E. 399 400 IRA-NCTE International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 74 75 Iverson, H. 273 Jacobs, J. 360, 367, 372 Jamieson, I. 292 Jansen, B. A. 27 Jenkins, F. 358 Jenkins, H. 27 28 Jenkins, M. 27 Jewiss, T. 313

Author Index

Johnson, J. 340 341, 343 Johnson, L. 321, 323, 326 327, 330, 332 Johnson, R. L. 125 Johnston, A. 27 Jonides, J. 449 Jordan, R. 267 Jorde, D. 176 Justice, C. 9, 27 28 Kahn, P. 249 Kalkan, H. 212 Kapelari, S. 180, 191, 194 Kaplan, M. 402, 404 408, 412, 414 Kastberg, D. 358 Kauffman, N. 80 81, 83 86 Kauffmann, N. L. 399 400 Kazis, R. 423 Kearsley, G. 423 Kegan, R. 440 Keiffer, A. 292 Kelly, A. P. 340 341 Kelly, D. 358 Kelly, J. 359 Kelsey, K. 155, 158 Kemperer, L. 399 400 Kesten, A. 52 Khishfe, R. 149 Kibaru, F. 389 Kift, S. 224 225 Kilpatrick, W. H. 225 Kim, P. 26, 28 Kindfield, A. C. H. 9 Kinzie, J. 441, 453 Kirkwood, T. F. 394, 400 Kiroglu, K. 212 Kirschner, P. 5, 226, 331 Kirschner, P. A. 292, 313 Kliebard, H. M. 372 Kloser, M. 273

485

Knight, E. 386 Knowles, M. 50 Kogan, M. 442 Kolar, C. 323 Kolb, A. Y. 27 Kolb, D. 250 Kolb, D. A. 27, 54, 399, 401, 404 Korb, M. A. 358 Kosko, K. W. 360, 367 Kottkamp, R. B. 340 344 Kovbasyuk, O. 4 Kozma, R. 205 Krajcik, J. 74 Krathwohl, D. R. 212, 296 Krumboltz, J. D. 401 Kuh, G. 6, 394, 398 Kuh, G. D. 394, 441 442, 454 Kuhlthau, C. 230 Kuhn, D. 74, 149, 151, 155 Kuipers, J. 9 Kuo, L. H. 380 Kyburg, R. 80, 82 Kyburg, R. M. 79 83, 85 Lack, K. A. 424 Laetsch, W. 249 Laing, K. 109 Lakshmanan, A. 30 31 Lameras, P. 11 12, 179 Landeen, J. 313 Lannin, L. 225, 230 Laursen, S. 273 Laursen, S. L. 442 Lavaque-Manty, D. 402, 404 408, 412, 414 Lave, J. 205 Law, W. 310 Lawrie, G. 124 Leat, D. 110 Lederman, N. 154

486

Lee, J. J. 346 Lee, M. J. 381 Lee, N. 224 225, 230, 232 Lee, V. S. 4, 13 Lee, W. 9 Lehva¨virta, S. 178 Leifer, L. J. 329 330 Lemay, D. 88 89 Lemke, J. 205 Lenzen, D. 176 Lerner, J. S. 449 Levine, A. 340 342, 397, 401 402 Levy, A. J. 148, 150, 176 Levy, P. 11 12, 26 27, 179, 225, 345, 347 Little, S. 11, 26, 345, 347 Livingstone, D. W. 26 Llewellyn, D. 76, 83 Le´na, P. 176 177 Lopatto, D. 442 Lord, J. M. 27 Lorz, M. M. 272 Lotter, C. 180 Lou, K. H. 394 396, 400 401, 409, 412 Loucks-Horsley, S. 179, 214, 219 Louv, R. 177 Love, N. 179, 214, 219 Lucas, J. M. 6 Luft, J. A. 27, 42, 180 Lumina Foundation, 396 Lumpe, A. T. 194 Lynch, S. 9 Lytle, S. L. 26 MacDonald, S. 248 Malhotra, B. A. 125, 152 153, 171 Malone, K. 178 Manchester Museum, 245 Manconi, L. 88

AUTHOR INDEX

Manduca, C. 322, 330 Maniotes, L. 230 Mannix, E. 35 Maramba, I. 381 Marcum, J. 62 63 Marcus, J. M. 273 Marshall, J. C. 27, 202 Marshall, J. 26 Martin, J. N. 399 400 Martin, L. J. 124 Martindale, T. 423 Marx, R. 74 Masia, B. B. 296 Mason, L. 153 Mattern, N. 212 Matthews, H. 442 Mauss, M. 135 136 May, H. 86 Mayer, A. 85 McClain, K. 360 McComas, W. F. 58 McCormick, V. 433 McCright, A. M. 26 McDermott, L. C. 359 McElroy, D. M. 273 McGinnis, J. 202 McGuire, C. 423 McKay, V. C. 52 McKinney, L. 273 McKenney, S. 214 McKinney, P. 11 12, 179, 345, 347 McLoughlin, C. 381 McLaughlin, M. W. 179 McNair, T. 441 McNamara, J. 224 McQuiggan, C. 333 McTighe, J. 134, 136 138, 405, 412 Means, B. 326 Medina-Lo´pez-Portillo, A. 399

487

Author Index

Meizlish, D. 402, 404 408, 412, 414 Mellon, G. 273 Merriam, S. B. 203 Meyer, M. 256 Mezirow, J. 4, 50 Michels, A. 310 Miles, M. B. 182 Miller, B. 319, 325 Miller, S. 9 Miner, J. 51 Minner, D. D. 148, 150, 176 Mische, A. 114 Moje, E. 205 Molesworth, M. 292 Monteiro, S. 224 Montrose, L. 395 Moon, J. 303, 411 412, 414 Moreno, J. M. 26 Moreno, R. 360, 373 Morris, M. 177 178 Morrison, K. 149 Mundry, S. 214, 219 Murphy, J. 341, 343 Murray, I. 293, 296 Murray, M. 52 Nagda, B. A. 449 Naidoo, R. 292 National and Community Service Act, 346 National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration, 342 National Leadership Council (US), 394 395, 398 National Research Council, 150 151, 176, 178, 272 273, 359, 367, 372, 408, 442 National Science Board, 272

National Science Resources Center, 358 NC Principal Fellows Program, 349 NCHS National Center for History in the Schools, 74 75 Nu¨ckles, M. 313 NCSS National Council for the Social Studies, 74 NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 74 Neale, M. A. 35 Negroponte, S. 310 Nehm, R. 322, 330 Nelson, G. 358 Nelson, K. 225 Next Generation Science Standards, 359, 367 NGSS Lead States, 150 Nibbs, A. 11, 345, 347 Nixon, E. 292 Njoroge, R. 389 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 344 Nord, C. W. 358 Norling, J. 401 402 North Carolina Department of Instruction, 63 North Carolina State Board of Education, 347 Nothnagle, M. 331 Novak, J. 52 November, A. 43 NRC National Research Council, 74 Nussbaum, M. 380 Nygren, T. I. 424 Nystrand, M. 28 Obama, B. 358 O’Boyle, E. 80 81

488

Ogden, A. C. 399 Ohn, J. D. 75 Oliver, R. 322 Olkinuora, E. 231 O’Neill, K. 343, 346 Opper, S. 399 400 O’Rourke, K. 249 Orphanos, S. 194 Ortegano-Layne, L. 360, 373 Osborne, J. 177, 182 O’Shea, J. 10, 440, 443 O’Steen, B. 225, 442 Paige, M. 401 Paige, R. M. 394 396, 400 401, 409, 412 Palincsar, A. 56 Papert, S. 12, 310 Parsonnet, J. 331 Pascarella, E. T. 441, 449 Passarelli, A. M. 399, 401 Patchen, A. 10 Pathway, 359 Patterson, G. C. 64 Patton, L. D. 402, 404, 441 Payne, J. R. 125 Pea, R. 274 Pela´ez, S. 88 89 Penuel, W. R. 360 Perlmutter, A. 30 31 Perna, L. W. 86 Perry, W. G., Jr. 126, 404 Peters, C. K. 399 400 Peterson, A. D. C. 79 Peterson, D. 399 400 Petrulis, R. 27, 225, 345 Phillips, C. 251 254 Phillips, M. 178, 247 Phillips, R. 268 Phillips, T. 267

AUTHOR INDEX

Piaget, J. 12 Piburn, M. 361 362 Pieters, J. 214 Pike, G. R. 394 Pintrich, P. 324 Pintrich, P. R. 149 Pittman, M. E. 360, 367, 372 Plato, 440 Pluta, W. J. 155 Poelzer, G. H. 86 Poikonen, P.-L. 102 Ponjuan, L. 273 Porath, M. 80, 82, 85 Porter, A. C. 180, 359 360 Prain, V. 202 Prescott, A. 292 Pretty, J. 177 Pribbenow, D. A. 52 Prince, M. J. 87 Programme for International Student Assessment, 102 Pross, S. 331 Pryor, J. 104 Putnam, R. 360 Pyke, C. 9 Qu, F. 310 Quebec (Ministe`re de l’E´ducation du Que´bec), 75 Ragan, L. 333 Ransom, T. 86 Ray, W. 292 Reeves, T. 322 Reeves, T. C. 50 Regan, E. 180, 191, 194 Reid, A. 110 Reis, S. M. 85 86 Reiser, B. J. 5 Renken, M. 153

Author Index

Renn, K. A. 402, 404, 441 Renzulli, J. S. 86 Resnick, L. B. 360 Resource, 247 Rice, J. 9, 27 28 Richardson, N. 194 Richardson, W. 345 Rickinson, M. 177 178 Riordan, T. 4 Roark, M. F. 401 402 Robelia, B. 380 Roberts, C. 292 Robertson, J. 442 Robinson, A. 86 Rocard, M. 176 Rocca, K. A. 434 Rodriguez, A. 86 Rodriguez, A. J. 359 Rogers, E. 380 Rogers, M. 122 Roth, J. 4 Rothstein, D. 320, 326, 328 Roy, D. 9, 27 28 Rozee, P. D. 52 Ruddock, J. 115 Rufino, V. J. 80 Ruiz-Primo, M. A. 273 Russell, C. B. 273 Russell Group, 249 Russell, J. 205 Sadeh, I. 150 Sadler, T. D. 273 Samarapungavan, A. 149 Sanders, D. 177 178 Sanders, D. L. 178 Sandoval, W. 153 Sandoval, W. A. 5, 148 150, 153 154 Sanford, N. 402

489

Saninno, A. 105 106, 117 Santana, L. 320, 326, 328 Sardeshmukh, S. R. 224 Sarja, A. 102 Saunders-Stewart, K. S. 76 Savery, J. R. 27, 292, 309 Savicki, V. 399 Savin-Baden, M. 85, 293, 296, 303, 307, 313 Sawada, D. 361 362 Sawyer, R. D. 347 Scardamalia, M. 5 Schau, C. 212 Scheppler, J. 323 Schleicher, A. 318, 321, 335 Schloss, A. 178 Schnellert, L. 27 28 Schommer, M. 149, 153 Schulman, L. 178 Schwab, J. 12 Schwartz, R. 154 Schwarz, J. 322, 330 Scott, S. 56 Scrimsher, S. 56 Scullion, R. 292 Seaman, J. 422 Seel, R. 29 Seiler, G. 273 Sell, D. K. 399 400 Seymour, E. 273, 442 Sharma, R. 224 Shavelson, R. 273 Shepardson, D. 202 Sheppard, L. A. 273 Sherin, M. G. 367 Shirk, J. L. 267 Shore, B. M. 11, 74 76, 83 86, 88 Shulman, L. S. 344, 355 Silver, N. 402, 404 408, 412, 414 Simmons, C. 230

490

Simmons, E. H. 407 Sinclair, J. 104 Sindt, P. E. 6 Singer, J. 180 Singer, S. 322, 330 Sirinides, P. M. 86 Sirola, C. 358 Smaller, H. 26 Smart, J. B. 27, 202 Smith, C. 149, 152 Smithgroup JJR, 396 Smith-Nelson, R. M. 224 Sniezek, J. A. 35 Soloway, E. 74 Southerland, S. A. 27 Spoken-Smith, R. 6 Spronken-Smith, R. 27, 225, 292, 442 Stake, R. 277 Stanbury, P. 248 Steel, A. 155, 158 Steffe, L. 27 Steinberg, M. 395, 400, 412 Steiner, H. E. 287 Stenberg, K. 52 Stibbe, A. 225, 230 Stigler, J. W. 360, 369 370 Stiles, K. 214, 219 Stiles, K. E. 179 Strauss, A. 347, 350 Strauss, A. L. 347, 350 Strauss, E. 10 Strickland, D. C. 125 Styer, S. 323 Sweller, J. 5, 226, 292, 313, 331 Syer, C. A. 74 76, 83 84 Szesze, M. 9 Szymus, J. 310 Tabarrok, A. 422

AUTHOR INDEX

Tagg, J. 396, 405 Talbot, R. 273 Tamblyn, R. M. 27 Tarc, P. 85 Tarver, E. T. 80, 85 Tawfik, A. 272 Taylor, C. J. H. 399 400 Taylor, M. L. 80, 82, 85 Teamey, K. 177 178 Tedder, M. 117 Teichler, U. 399 400 Terenzini, P. T. 441, 449 The University of Manchester, 245 Thiry, H. 273 Thomas, U. 109 110 Timmerman, B. E. C. 125 Timperley, H. 177, 179 Tinmaz, H. 225 Tiplady, L. 109 Tirrell, P. 248 Torrance, H. 104 Traina, J. 323 Treloar, C. 224 Trevors, G. 323 324 Trueman, R. J. 272 Tudge, J. 56 Twigg, C. 423 Twigg, V. V. 80 82 Tynjala, P. 231 Tytler, R. 202 203 Ucko, D. A. 267 UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 75 Universities, 394 395, 398 University of Connecticut, Assessment, 327 Uren, O. 225, 230 231

491

Author Index

U.S. News & World Report, 122 Useem, J. 399 400 Vaccaro, A. 397 Vajoczki, S. 9, 313 van Acker, E. 224 van der Rijst, R. M. 88 van Driel, J. H. 88 Van Eijck, M. 117 Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. 404 van Oord, L. 80, 82 Vande Berg, M. 394 396, 400 401, 409, 412 Vanderbrook, C. M. 80, 82 83, 85 Vargas, P. 153 Vasconcelos, A. 345 Veenman, M. V. J. 404 Vergou, A. 180, 191, 194 Victoria University, 226 227 Vine, M. 313 Visser-Wijnveen, G. J. 88 von Hippel, W. 449 Voogt, J. 214 Vulliamy, G. 102 Vygotsky, L. S. 6, 12, 84 Wakelin, S. J. 88 Walberg-Henriksson, H. 176 Waldrip, B. 202 Walker, R. 27, 225 Walraven, A. 214 Wang, J. 219 Wankel, L. 7 Warry, W. 9 Weaver, G. 124 Weaver, H. D. 399 400 Webb, G. 308 Webb, R. 102

Wee, B. 202 Wegner, E. 313 Wei, H. M. 380 Wei, R. C. 194 Weinstock, M. 151 Wellington, J. 256 Wells, G. 113 Wenger, E. 205, 360 Wertsch, J. 56 Westbroek, H. 214 Wever-Frerichs, S. 178 Wheeler, S. 381 Whitney, D. 29 Wiggins, A. 267 Wiggins, G. 294, 405, 412 Wiggins, G. P. 134, 136 138 Wilderman, C. C. 267 Wilkinson, V. 80 Willison, J. 180, 191, 194 Wilson, A. 177, 179 Wilson, K. 224 Windschitl, M. 202 Wink, D. J. 273 Wirkala, C. 74 Wolfe, E. W. 9 Wong, G. N. 9 Wong-MingJi, D. J. 9 Woo, Y. 50 Wood, C. 177 Wood, J. 11, 345, 347 Woodbury, S. 27 Woodham, A. 247 Woolf, M. 395, 400 Woolner, P. 109 Wurdinger, S. 27 Wurdinger, S. D. 27 Wurr, A. J. 52 Wyatt, R. E. 273

492

Wyse Jackson, P. S. 177

AUTHOR INDEX

Yorke, M. 292 Young, L. L. 10

Xie, H. 358 Yachimowicz, D. 399 400 Yamaguchi, R. 360 Yang, H. J. 380 Yee, A. 86 Yerbury, D. 248 Yoon, K. S. 180, 359 360

Zambo, D. 344, 354 Zamojski, H. 380 Zeilik, M. 212 Zepeda, S. J. 389 Zion, M. 150 Zubrowski, B. 359

SUBJECT INDEX Authentic learning, 8, 21, 34, 226, 230, 322 Authenticity, 7, 37, 225 226, 230, 235, 256, 258, 268 Autonomous Learning, 76, 292 Autonomy, 105, 111, 116, 238, 292, 299, 312

Active Learning, 6, 10 11, 317, 364 365, 411, 414, 424 Adaptive learning, 326 327 Adult learning, 266, 423 Aesthetic, 79, 207, 261, 263, 265, 267 268 Affective, 8, 12, 17 18, 37, 66, 135, 182, 189, 291 293, 295 296, 308, 311, 317, 324, 327 328, 371, 395, 402 Agency, 15, 102, 106, 111 112, 117, 207, 227, 340 345, 355 Alignment, 84, 230, 431 432 Amateurs, 253, 263, 264, 265 Appreciative Inquiry, 29 Argumentation, 276 Arts, 15 16, 18, 59, 75, 78 79, 87, 121 123, 158, 223, 225 229, 231, 233, 235, 237 239, 291, 293, 448 Assessment, 9, 11, 14 15, 17, 50, 58, 66, 78, 84, 101 103, 121 123, 133 134, 136, 147 149, 151, 153 154, 159 161, 163, 172, 180, 183, 193, 202, 206 207, 230, 233 234, 238, 275, 291 300, 302, 304, 309 310, 313, 318 319, 324 329, 333 334, 347, 353, 358, 371, 373, 380, 405, 407, 410, 414, 429 431 Astronomy, 16, 201, 203, 207, 209 Asynchronous Collaboration, 428

Badging, 381 382, 385 386, 390 Bernstein, 15, 101, 105 106, 110, 112 113, 116, 414 Biodiversity, 178 179, 181, 183, 187 189, 192 Bloom’s Taxonomy, 13, 66, 125, 212, 324 Botanic gardens, 16, 175 179, 181, 183 187, 189 191, 193 195 Botany, 176, 187 Boyer Report, 87 Capstone, 16 17, 87, 89, 223 239, 453 454 Case study, 13, 16, 25, 28 29, 137, 175, 203, 386, 402 403, 410 411, 427, 429 430, 433 434 Challenge, 5, 13, 20, 30, 39, 42, 81, 86, 90, 110, 124 125, 129 130, 208, 210 211, 214 215, 238, 244, 256, 259, 266, 274, 310, 322, 325 327, 335, 353, 397, 410, 430, 439, 441 442, 444, 449, 453 455, 457 493

494

Citizenship, 51, 413, 443 Civic development, 454 Classification, 105, 156, 161, 181 Classroom Practice, 84, 360, 367 Climate change, 178 179, 181, 183, 187 189, 192, 275 276 Co-construction, 85 Co-curricular, 20, 429, 431, 439, 442 444, 449, 452, 457 Collaboration, 9 10, 12, 14, 25, 30, 33, 41 42, 49 55, 57, 64, 71, 190 192, 204, 218, 296, 305, 308, 322, 327, 346, 361, 380 381, 424, 428, 430, 446, 453, 455 Collaborative Learning, 11, 190, 239, 426 Collections, 17, 177, 185, 243 244, 246 249, 253 255, 262 263, 265 Communities of Practice, 361, 373 Community Engagement, 10, 71, 138, 248, 399, 443 Community Service, 51 52, 79, 87, 346 Complexity, 4, 13, 86, 124 125, 132, 149, 228, 235, 274, 287, 351, 436 Conflict, 229, 234 Construct Knowledge, 11, 50, 325, 367 Constructivism, 325 Constructivist, 27, 84, 102 104, 106, 149, 152, 250, 313, 318, 320, 330 331, 359, 372, 395, 405 406, 409, 415 Content Development, 254, 256 257, 259, 262, 265 266, 268

SUBJECT INDEX

Content, 8 9, 11 12, 14 15, 20 21, 43, 50, 52, 57 59, 63, 66, 71, 74 75, 78, 81 85, 87 93, 105 107, 109 110, 117, 126, 128, 130, 133, 137 138, 144, 147 148, 150 151, 155, 157 159, 163, 172, 181, 183, 188, 191 192, 202, 214, 216 219, 226, 232, 254, 256 257, 259, 262 263, 265 268, 274, 277 278, 293, 321 322, 326 327, 359, 361, 363, 367, 371, 373, 378 382, 393, 397, 399, 405 411, 414 415, 427 429, 435 436 Context, 5, 8 9, 18, 21, 29, 31, 33 34, 40, 44, 50, 56, 74 76, 90, 102 104, 117 118, 123 127, 129 131, 133, 135 137, 140 141, 144, 149, 152 154, 163, 170 171, 207, 224 226, 231 232, 238, 246 247, 249 250, 254, 283, 295, 302 303, 307, 309, 318 322, 324 326, 329, 339, 345 349, 351 352, 354 355, 360, 379, 399 400, 408 409, 428, 448 Contingent Teaching, 103 Convergent Teaching, 105 106, 111, 117 Convergent Thinking, 320, 329 Course Objectives, 11, 60, 319 Creating Knowledge, 91, 92, 298, 420 Creativity, 73, 78 79, 224, 268, 297, 330, 398 Credible Narrative, 204 Critical thinking, 14, 43, 50 52, 55 56, 64, 66, 76, 79 80, 82,

Subject Index

150, 152, 189, 287, 309, 325 326, 331, 396 397, 412, 428, 442 444, 447, 449, 453 Cross-disciplinary, 14, 16, 49 50, 223 224, 232, 234 Curiosity, 11, 39, 76, 78, 103, 106, 110, 130, 249, 265, 268, 300, 378, 403, 414 415, 452, 454, 456 Curricular Reform, 394, 397 Curriculum Development, 44 Curriculum, 14 16, 28, 43 44, 52, 63, 75, 77 82, 84, 86 87, 90, 101 107, 110 111, 117 118, 122, 150, 155, 192, 195, 204, 217 218, 224, 226, 228 229, 233, 236, 253, 308 309, 319, 321, 324, 331, 343, 346, 359, 377, 394, 398, 403, 408, 410, 413, 423, 441, 444 445, 448, 452, 456 Design Thinking, 329 330 Design, 5, 10 11, 13, 19, 36, 51 52, 55 57, 60, 62, 64, 77, 80, 109, 125, 128, 135, 151, 155 156, 176, 178, 181, 185, 191, 194, 207, 230, 236, 238, 265, 267 268, 274, 276 282, 285 287, 326 330, 333, 347, 380, 382, 387, 395, 399, 402, 405 406, 410 414, 424, 426, 445 446, 448, 451, 455 Development, 3, 5 13, 15, 17 21, 25 35, 37, 39 44, 49, 51 53, 56, 60, 73 74, 76 78, 80, 93, 101, 110, 112, 114, 117, 121 122, 131, 147 148, 153, 172, 175 177, 180 181, 183, 185 189, 201 205, 209, 214,

495

216, 223 225, 229, 239, 243 244, 246, 250, 254, 256 259, 261 263, 265 268, 271, 278 281, 291 295, 299 300, 305, 307 308, 311, 313, 317 319, 323, 326, 332 335, 339 340, 347 349, 357 361, 363 364, 367 373, 377 380, 383, 386, 388 391, 393 395, 399 400, 402, 404 406, 408, 410, 412 415, 421, 439 440, 442 443, 453 454, 457 Dialogue, 88, 90 92, 103 104, 113, 250, 258, 305, 311, 431, 443, 452 Digital, 31, 118, 258, 264 265, 326, 350, 377 378, 382, 384 386, 424, 435 436, 447 Diploma Program, 73 74, 78, 227 228 Directed inquiry, 16 17, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 217, 287, 379 Disciplinary, 14, 16, 19, 49 50, 78, 122 123, 136, 148, 152, 155, 157 158, 223 229, 231 232, 234 236, 238, 250, 305, 393 Discovery, 26 27, 50, 88, 91, 109, 123, 128, 216, 244, 268, 313, 330, 379, 382 386, 390, 426 Discussion Board, 413, 423, 430 432 Distance Education, 378 Divergent questions, 132 133 Divergent Teaching, 110 Divergent Thinking, 82, 320, 332 Diversity, 39, 77, 82, 92, 178, 217, 228, 230, 234, 236 237, 248, 311 312, 424

496

Dominant Activity, 106, 117 Dominant Discourse, 104, 106, 116, 118 Ecological Agency, 117 Ecology, 15, 102, 104, 148 149, 154 155, 157 159, 170 172, 275, 282 Ecosystems, 157, 159, 163, 193 Education Abroad, 6, 20, 393 395, 398 400, 403, 405, 408 409, 413 Education Leadership, 339 355 Educational Growth, 10, 20, 439 444, 449, 452 453, 456 457 Educational Leadership, 18, 339 341, 344, 355 Educational Technology, 26, 41, 77, 377 378, 385, 388, 428 Emerging Technology, 326 Emotion, 14, 57, 59, 74, 80, 83, 89, 92, 93, 258, 265, 292, 296, 297, 299, 300, 308, 309, 428, 467 Engagement, 6, 10, 14, 16, 19, 28 29, 33, 38, 40, 43 44, 49 50, 52, 54, 63, 66, 71, 74, 84, 87, 90, 104, 118, 136, 138, 178, 180, 182, 188 190, 201 203, 207, 216 217, 225, 230 231, 233, 236 238, 244, 246, 248, 255, 258, 267 268, 273, 294, 303, 307, 345, 347, 369, 377 379, 381, 383 385, 387, 389, 394, 398 399, 406, 408 409, 412, 414, 433, 442 443, 446, 449, 452, 455 Engaging, 8, 10, 17, 19, 36, 54, 57, 60, 63, 70, 76, 79, 85, 88, 90,

SUBJECT INDEX

103, 170, 176, 187, 193 194, 207, 216 218, 224 225, 228, 267, 271 273, 275, 277, 279, 281, 283, 285, 287 288, 361, 393, 412, 441, 445, 449, 451 452, 456 Epistemic Cognition, 10, 152 Epistemic Practices, 5, 10, 16, 201 Epistemic Stance, 103, 294 Epistemology, 11, 15, 148 153, 155, 159 160, 162 163, 169 172, 297, 304 Equality, 10, 20, 53, 439 445, 447, 449, 451 453, 455 457 European Union, 179 Evaluation, 63, 76 77, 91, 129, 151, 176, 178, 180, 182 185, 188, 191 192, 195, 205, 268, 287, 295, 318 319, 324, 328, 332 334, 373 Evidence, 5 6, 16, 30, 52, 75 76, 78 79, 81, 83 84, 86, 91, 110, 117, 123, 125 126, 128 129, 134, 136, 140 141, 151 158, 162 163, 168, 171 172, 175 177, 179 182, 184 185, 189, 191, 194 195, 204, 218, 230, 238, 244 245, 276, 281, 285 286, 292, 299, 327, 331 332, 335, 348, 371, 386, 389, 394, 397, 407, 433 434, 442, 445 446 Evidence-based Research, 79, 178 Executive standards, 347 348 Expectations, 36, 74, 80, 82, 88 90, 92, 148, 164 165, 233, 302, 304, 307 308, 312, 363, 396, 403, 405, 426 Experiential Education, 51

Subject Index

Experiential Learning, 27, 49 50, 54, 225, 250, 293, 311, 401 404, 406 407, 414 Experts, 17, 158, 223, 232, 265, 318, 322, 326, 407 408, 426 Exploration, 11, 109, 131 132, 208, 249, 294, 302, 313, 327, 345, 365, 372, 402, 411 412, 426 Facilitation, 38, 44, 131, 235, 258, 295, 300, 308 309, 312 313, 426, 446 Faculty Development, 18, 317, 332 335, 395, 408, 410, 413 414 Faculty, 3, 5 8, 12, 14 15, 18 20, 25, 28, 34, 49 55, 57 58, 62 64, 66, 70, 73, 87, 101, 109, 121 123, 126, 147, 175, 201, 223, 243, 271 273, 291, 317 320, 322 328, 330 335, 339, 346, 357, 361 362, 377 380, 383, 385, 388 389, 393 397, 400 405, 407 410, 412 415, 421, 423 424, 439, 444 447, 449 452, 454 455 Flexibility, 13, 35, 80, 141, 216, 224, 234, 238, 268, 382, 408 Forces, 6, 16, 115, 136, 201, 203, 207 208, 210, 369 370, 428 Formal, 7, 11, 16, 58, 79, 89, 144, 149 150, 153, 160, 170, 175, 178 179, 194, 229, 232, 235, 246, 249 255, 262 263, 268, 345, 402 Framework, 11 14, 17 18, 21, 36, 50, 63, 71, 102 103, 105, 148 149, 153, 179, 182, 184, 205, 223, 231, 247, 256, 258, 260 261, 263, 266 267, 293,

497

319, 332 334, 360, 378, 394, 404 405, 427, 435 Framing, 11, 15, 101, 105 106, 111, 113 117, 149, 294, 399 Free-choice, 250 252, 254 Geographic Information Systems, 277 Gifted, 73, 75, 77, 81, 86 87, 89, 440 441 Goal-setting, 76 Google Document, 382, 430, 432 Google Presentation, 428 Graduate students, 53, 87, 155, 227, 307, 383, 427, 433, 440, 444 446, 449 451 Grounded Theory, 25 26, 32, 350 Group Development, 9, 13, 25 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 44 Group Dynamics, 229, 233, 294, 303 304, 312 Group work, 114, 233, 235, 276, 296, 302, 304 305, 310, 406, 443, 448 Guided inquiry, 17, 78, 155, 223, 229, 236, 272, 275, 278, 321, 328 329, 454 High Impact Practice, 144, 394, 395, 398-402, 415, 441, 449 High Stakes Assessment, 14, 101, 102 Higher education, 3, 6 7, 14, 18, 25, 28, 32, 38, 42, 44, 49, 51 52, 54, 73 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85 92, 101, 111, 121, 147, 175, 201, 223 225, 228, 233, 238, 243, 247, 249, 271, 291 292, 317 318, 321 322, 325 326, 329 330, 332, 335, 339, 346, 357, 359, 377 379,

498

385, 393 395, 402, 407, 414 415, 421 423, 429 430, 439 441, 444, 450, 457 Higher Order Learning, 9 Holistic, 10, 49, 79, 85, 125, 226, 399, 404, 406, 415 Humanities, 79, 234 235, 445, 455 456 Hybrid Inquiry, 15, 101 118 Hydroponics, 275, 277, 282 284, 286 287 IBL, 3 17, 19 21, 26 29, 31, 33 34, 36, 41, 43 45, 101, 103 107, 109 118, 122 124, 137, 143 144, 291 297, 299 300, 303, 307 311, 313, 345 346, 393, 406 409, 411 415, 441 445, 447 449, 451 457 Identity, 13, 25 26, 28, 106, 114 115, 117, 137, 144, 224 225, 230, 237, 239, 244, 304, 404, 407 Imagination, 84, 102, 247 Informal, 11, 58, 158, 175, 179, 194, 235, 251 254, 262 263, 300, 311 312 Inquire, 16, 87, 175 194, 260 Inquiry Education, 147 Inquiry Learning, 5, 14, 74, 80, 89 90, 275, 328 Inquiry Process, 30 31, 33, 35, 38, 64, 85, 88, 124, 126, 129 131, 229 230, 273, 287 288, 374, 447, 453 454 Inquiry, 3 5, 8 20, 25 44, 49 53, 55 59, 61 67, 69, 71, 73 93, 101 103, 106 107, 109 110, 113, 117, 121 137, 139, 141,

SUBJECT INDEX

143, 147 156, 158 161, 163 172, 175 179, 181 185, 187 191, 193, 201 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213 215, 217, 219, 223 226, 228 230, 232, 236 238, 243, 245, 248 250, 254, 256, 260 263, 265 268, 271 275, 277 279, 281 288, 291 292, 294, 296, 299, 302, 305 306, 308, 311, 313, 317 335, 339 341, 343 347, 349, 351 353, 355, 357 374, 377 380, 383, 390 391, 393 395, 397 399, 401, 403, 405 415, 421 431, 433, 435 436, 439, 441 447, 449 450, 452 457 Inquiry-based Instruction, 5, 58, 84, 90, 93, 151, 273 274, 287, 324, 362, 372 Inquiry-Based Learning, 3 4, 15, 17, 19 20, 25 27, 33, 40, 49, 51, 56, 58, 62, 73, 75, 79, 101, 121 124, 137, 147, 175, 189, 201, 223, 225 226, 243, 245, 248 249, 254, 256, 267 268, 271, 273 274, 291 292, 317, 322, 327, 332, 339, 344 345, 357, 377 380, 390 391, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 405 407, 409 411, 413, 415, 421 423, 425 431, 433, 435 436, 439, 441, 444, 455 Inquiry-based Science Education, 15, 147 148, 150, 175 176 Inquiry-based teaching, 8, 10 11, 14, 16, 18, 28, 49 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 76, 79, 84, 175, 177 179, 181,

499

Subject Index

183 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 202, 214, 219, 317 323, 325, 327 329, 331 335, 361 363, 370, 372, 415 Institution, 4, 7 8, 10, 20, 53, 121, 190, 226, 245 246, 248, 254, 262 263, 332, 335, 346, 380 381, 395, 398, 402, 409, 430 431, 439 440, 443 444, 452, 457 Institutional Development, 3, 5 9, 20, 25, 49, 73, 101, 121, 147, 175, 201, 223, 243, 271, 291, 317, 339, 357, 377, 393, 421, 439 Institutional, 3, 5 10, 18, 20, 25, 49, 57, 73, 87, 101, 121, 147, 175, 190, 201, 223 224, 243, 247, 266, 271, 291, 310, 317, 319, 322, 329, 332 334, 336, 339, 346, 357, 377, 391, 393, 421, 429 432, 439 443, 456 457 Instruction, 5, 10, 14, 18 20, 50, 52, 54, 58, 63, 70, 73 76, 81, 84 85, 88, 90, 92 93, 144, 149, 151 152, 158, 169 172, 226, 256, 274, 287, 320 321, 324 327, 330 331, 354, 357 360, 362, 372, 379, 393, 399, 404, 422, 424, 426 427, 431, 444, 452 Instructional Leader, 7 9 Instructional Leadership, 459, 462 Interactive Experience Model, 250 251 International Baccalaureate, 14, 73 77, 79, 81, 83, 85 91 International Education, 393, 395

International, 14, 73 79, 81, 83, 85 91, 102, 248, 358, 393, 395, 399, 441, 449, 453 Internet, 107, 267, 321, 378 379, 422, 425 426, 434, 436 Internship, 18, 339 340, 344 347, 349, 351, 353 355, 452 454 Interpersonal skills, 227 Interpretation, 75, 130 133, 140 142, 202, 283, 286, 295 Interviews, 80, 88, 153, 185, 205, 217, 235, 237, 334, 357, 361 365, 367 368, 426 427, 451 Knowledge Creation, 378, 442 Learner Epistemology, 15, 148 152, 159, 163, 169 170, 172 Learning Architect, 8, 13 Learning Environment, 4 6, 8, 11 12, 21, 28, 50, 77, 81, 86, 122, 172, 180, 187 188, 251 254, 310 311, 317, 322 323, 328, 333, 335, 345, 383, 395, 404, 406 410, 412 413, 415 Learning Management System, 430 Learning Outcomes, 9, 11, 13, 84, 88 89, 102, 116, 137, 148, 151, 179, 189, 193, 214, 226 227, 327, 332 334, 343, 346, 350, 352, 395, 400, 402, 405, 407, 413 414, 423 424, 430 432, 442 Learning, 3 21, 25 44, 49 67, 69, 71, 73 82, 84 93, 101 109, 112, 115 118, 121 125, 133, 137 138, 143 144, 147 148,

500

150 153, 155 156, 158, 170, 172, 175 185, 187 191, 193 194, 201 207, 211 212, 214, 217 219, 223 228, 230 231, 235 236, 238 239, 243 256, 258 260, 265 268, 271, 273 275, 281, 287, 291 296, 299, 301 313, 317 335, 339 341, 343 355, 357 358, 360, 364 365, 373, 377 380, 382 386, 388 391, 393 415, 421 433, 435 436, 439 444, 449 455 Liberal Arts, 15, 121 123 Lifelong Learning, 10, 383, 386, 407, 442 443 Lifewide Learning, 4, 21 Literacies of Science, 205 Meaningful, 4, 6 9, 11 12, 21, 31, 33 34, 52, 62, 78, 90, 129, 207, 216, 267, 317 318, 321, 326, 332, 346, 352, 395, 397, 429, 433, 435 Meaning-making, 4 5, 7, 295 Mentorship, 19, 231, 323, 331, 340, 344, 345, 349, 355, 367, 378, 379, 379, 385, 386, 388, 389, 391, 414, 444, 450, 455 Metacognition, 66, 305, 317, 320, 323 324, 328, 378, 404 Metacognitive, 76, 79, 112, 138, 143, 154, 225, 318, 323 324, 326, 328, 412 Meta-representational Competence, 205 Methodology, 153, 189, 203, 262, 300, 345, 407, 445, 447 Model, 9 10, 13 14, 18, 25 27, 32 33, 40, 43 44, 49 52,

SUBJECT INDEX

54 56, 58, 60, 62, 66, 70 71, 106, 110, 128, 130 131, 140, 160, 187 188, 190 191, 212, 231, 235, 250 251, 256, 278, 282, 293, 318 319, 322, 324, 332 333, 358 359, 379 380, 383, 390 391, 401, 406 407, 414, 422, 444 445, 452 Modeling, 13, 41, 86, 123, 131, 154, 160, 164 165, 171, 183, 205, 276, 380 Motivation, 6, 8, 19, 43, 51, 55, 62, 76, 86, 105, 147 148, 151 152, 169, 172, 177, 182, 250 251, 273, 324, 334, 357, 363, 369, 372 373, 385, 441, 445, 454, 456 Multi-modal Representations, 205 Museum, 17, 158, 183, 243 255, 257 259, 261 268, 403 Non-traditional, 223, 225, 227, 236, 239, 360, 423 Objects, 144, 193, 207 208, 210 211, 243, 245 246, 250, 264 266 Online Community, 378, 381 Online Education, 20, 44, 421 423, 436 Open Inquiry, 10, 20, 278, 292, 320, 323, 439, 443, 454 457 Open-ended Inquiry, 17, 272, 275, 282 Organizational Change, 29, 190 Outcomes, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 16, 26 27, 31, 33 34, 39 40, 43, 52, 59, 63, 76, 83 85, 88 89, 91, 101 103, 110, 116 117, 125 127, 137, 148, 150 151, 163, 171 172, 176, 178 179,

Subject Index

182, 185, 189, 193 194, 203, 214, 217, 226 233, 235 238, 259, 277, 294 295, 297, 308 309, 318 319, 324 325, 327 329, 331 334, 343, 346, 350, 352, 395, 400, 402, 405, 407, 413 414, 423 424, 430 432, 434, 440, 442 Pan-European, 177 Participatory learning, 8, 12, 81, 294, 304, 378, 379 PBL, 44, 118, 292, 313, 322 Pedagogical Practices, 6, 13, 25 26, 28, 217 Pedagogy, 15 16, 20, 27 28, 31, 33 34, 37, 41, 43, 51, 74, 81, 84, 101, 104 105, 107, 114, 116 118, 133, 138, 176, 179, 194, 201 205, 207, 209, 211 215, 217, 327, 331, 333, 359, 361, 373, 378, 395, 404, 406, 413, 424, 439, 442 444, 449, 457 Peer Mentoring, 386, 388 389, 391 Personal Development, 10, 20, 300, 349, 404, 439, 442, 453, 457 Personal, 4, 7, 10, 20 21, 28, 32, 34, 36, 40, 57 58, 63, 78 79, 81, 92, 114, 136, 141 142, 144, 149, 161, 185, 207, 224 225, 228 230, 234, 236, 239, 250, 260, 263, 281, 297, 300, 306 309, 313, 328 329, 341, 349, 351, 354, 363, 366 369, 371, 373, 381, 386 389, 399 400, 405 406, 409, 433, 435, 439 441, 452 453, 456 457

501

PISA, 102, 358 pK-12 education, 463 PLACERS, 14, 49 52, 54 56, 58, 60, 66, 70 71 Portfolios, 78, 180 181, 185, 187, 189, 193, 414 Pre-Professional Programs, 53 Prescriptive, 12, 126, 317, 320 321 Pre-service Educators, 360, 373 Pre-service Teachers, 63, 373 Problem-based Learning, 6, 11, 27, 51, 292, 301, 322, 326, 413 Problem-based, 6, 11, 27, 51, 224, 292, 301, 322, 326, 329 331, 413 Problem-solving, 7, 14, 19, 39, 50, 52, 76, 83 84, 273, 329, 365, 393, 397 398 Professional development, 5, 19, 25 33, 37, 40 42, 44, 110, 176 177, 202, 214, 349, 357 361, 363 364, 367 373, 377 380, 383, 390 391 Project-based Learning, 11, 103, 108, 118, 225, 322, 329 Projects, 5, 10, 16 18, 36, 40, 42, 51, 58, 63 64, 71, 83, 87, 90, 92, 103, 106, 109 116, 131, 202 203, 207, 215 216, 218, 223 225, 229 232, 234 236, 238 239, 248, 323, 327, 340, 347, 352 353, 406, 414, 443 447, 449, 451, 454 456 Qualitative, 25, 27, 30 32, 35, 58, 66, 81, 134, 156 158, 176, 182, 235, 351, 363 Questioning, 5, 28, 40, 55, 82, 84, 104, 110, 122, 131, 135, 137,

502

144, 181, 287, 310, 320, 345, 365 366, 406, 412 Questions, 4 5, 11 13, 26 32, 36, 38, 40 41, 58, 60, 64, 70, 74 75, 78, 83 84, 87, 91, 103 104, 106, 110, 112 113, 115, 123, 125, 130 135, 137 138, 150 152, 155, 161 162, 179, 182, 186, 188 189, 193, 212, 225, 232, 244 245, 249, 254, 256, 262, 266, 274 275, 278 280, 285 287, 301, 304, 309, 311, 320, 322, 326, 328, 330, 357 358, 362 365, 368, 371, 394, 402 403, 406 407, 409 411, 413 414, 426, 430, 432, 435, 442 443, 445 447, 452 453 Reasoning, 13, 74, 89, 125 130, 153, 176, 202, 204 206, 211, 281, 285 286, 407, 412 Reflection, 14, 34, 37 38, 40, 50, 52, 54 55, 58, 64, 66, 74, 76, 78, 83 85, 159, 181, 185, 188, 215 216, 259, 294 295, 300, 302, 305 306, 309, 323, 329, 334, 348, 357, 367 368, 383 384, 389 390, 401, 403, 405 406, 409 412, 414, 426, 431, 436, 449, 453 Regulative Discourse, 112 113, 116 Relational Learning, 9, 14, 25, 33, 40, 43 44 Reports, 17, 73, 88, 91, 118, 125 126, 150, 154, 183, 228 230, 235, 277, 279, 293, 334, 389, 395

SUBJECT INDEX

Representational Affordance, 208 Representations, 16, 84, 201 208, 210, 212, 214 218 Research, 3 9, 11 12, 14 17, 19 20, 25 31, 35, 41 44, 53, 73 74, 76 80, 82 89, 91, 103, 105 107, 110, 121 124, 130 135, 147 151, 153 156, 162, 169, 172, 176 179, 183, 186, 188 189, 194, 201 203, 212 213, 219, 227, 229 235, 237, 239, 243 246, 248 249, 254 256, 260 263, 266 268, 271 275, 277, 284 288, 294, 307, 309, 318, 320 321, 323, 325 326, 330 331, 335, 342, 346, 350, 357, 359, 362 363, 367, 372 373, 379, 385, 393 395, 398 402, 404, 406, 408 411, 415, 422, 425, 427 429, 431, 433 434, 436, 439, 441 456 Role, 7 9, 14, 19, 26, 28, 32, 38, 42 44, 50 51, 63, 74 75, 77, 80 81, 85, 87, 93, 104, 108 109, 114 115, 118, 126, 134 135, 142, 144, 159, 185, 187, 191, 206, 208, 211, 214, 217 218, 224 225, 231 232, 237, 250, 267, 275 276, 292, 295, 298, 300 302, 310 312, 341, 354, 357, 361, 363, 365 368, 370 371, 373, 379, 381 383, 396, 407 409, 412 415, 436, 441, 445, 451 Rubric, 125 128, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142 143, 295, 325, 347 Rubrics, 13, 78, 413

Subject Index

Scaffolding, 10, 17, 20, 36, 81, 91, 169 171, 205 206, 217, 226, 272, 286 287, 310 311, 439, 445, 455, 457 Science, 14 17, 19, 42, 50, 75, 78 79, 109, 111, 113, 118, 125, 130, 147 155, 158 165, 170 172, 175 179, 182, 186 190, 194, 201 205, 214, 217 218, 239, 245, 252, 256, 258 259, 266, 271 275, 281, 286 288, 321 323, 326 327, 342, 357 361, 365, 372 373, 399, 407, 415 Scientific Design, 465, 447 Scoop It, 435 436 Secondary School, 82, 89, 102, 107 108, 110, 184, 203, 346 Self-directed Learning, 4, 11, 21, 251, 424, 442 Self-directed, 4 5, 8, 11, 19, 21, 86, 251, 324, 328, 378 379, 383, 413, 424, 442 Self-regulated, 11 12, 317, 324, 334, 403, 412 Self-regulation, 76, 89, 110, 112, 114, 225, 317 Service-Learning, 10, 51 53, 56, 58, 60, 63 64, 66, 71, 346 347, 355 Situated Learning, 11 Skype, 106 108, 112, 114, 363 Social Capital, 9, 14, 25, 33 34, 43 44 Social Development, 394 Social Learning, 307, 312, 327 Social Media, 58, 70, 379, 381 Social Networking, 382, 385, 390 391

503

Social Sciences, 15, 121, 123, 234 235, 445 Space, 7, 17, 39 41, 109, 161 162, 188, 191, 207, 210, 212, 244 247, 254 256, 258 268, 274 275, 281 282, 297, 299, 312, 333, 385 386, 424 425, 428, 432 434 Staff Development, 18, 291 295, 307 308, 311, 313 STEM, 26, 53, 58, 330, 358 362, 364 Stereotypes, 81, 137 138, 143 144, 423 Structured Inquiry, 19, 51, 322, 328 329, 377 378, 380, 391, 443 Student Development, 395, 402, 404 406, 410, 412, 415 Student Engagement, 6, 29, 207, 238, 307, 394, 398, 406, 408 409, 433, 442 Student Learning, 6, 11 12, 16, 19 20, 26, 29 31, 36, 40, 43, 51 52, 54 55, 144, 182, 189, 193, 201 204, 212, 214, 217, 219, 323 324, 326 327, 332 334, 343, 347, 349, 380, 393 395, 398, 400, 402, 404 405, 407, 409, 412 413, 415, 424, 430 Student Researcher, 133, 155 Student-centered, 8, 18, 27, 44, 317, 319 320, 323 324, 328, 331, 333, 335, 365, 407, 442 Study Abroad, 19, 393 395, 397, 399 403, 405 407, 409 411, 413

504

Success, 16 17, 62, 64, 75, 80, 93, 116, 122 123, 133, 148, 176, 194, 223, 228, 232, 238, 259, 268, 276, 278, 286, 292 293, 296, 304, 307 308, 310 313, 318, 321, 324, 332 333, 335, 346, 348, 380, 389, 414, 440, 442, 444 Taxonomy, 13, 66, 125, 132, 212, 251 254, 324, 328, 407 Teacher Education, 44, 57, 369 Teacher-leaders, 19, 358 Teaching and Learning, 3, 5 19, 21, 25, 31, 35, 37 38, 41, 49 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 76, 79, 84, 93, 101, 103, 109, 121, 147, 172, 175 179, 181, 183 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 201 206, 214, 217 219, 223, 243, 249, 271, 291 292, 295, 309, 317 323, 325, 327 335, 339, 345, 357, 377 378, 393 394, 400, 402, 410, 415, 421, 439, 442 Teaching, 3 19, 21, 25, 27 28, 30 32, 34 44, 49 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 63, 65, 67, 69 71, 73 76, 79 81, 84 85, 87 88, 90 93, 101 107, 109 111, 115, 117, 121, 123, 137, 144, 147, 149 150, 152, 172, 175 181, 183 191, 193, 201 206, 214, 217 219, 223, 225, 230 231, 239, 243, 248 249, 271, 273 274, 291 292, 294 295, 307, 309,

SUBJECT INDEX

312 313, 317 323, 325, 327 335, 339, 342 343, 345, 349, 357 363, 367, 369 370, 372, 374, 377 380, 383 384, 389, 391, 393 395, 400, 402 403, 406 408, 410, 415, 421, 424, 427 428, 436, 439, 442, 445 Technology, 10, 14, 20, 26, 28, 30 31, 35 36, 39, 41, 50, 60, 63, 71, 77, 79, 91, 109, 156, 252, 265, 276, 318 319, 324 329, 333, 345, 358, 377 380, 385, 388, 397, 407, 421 423, 425 433, 435 436, 447 Test, 54, 74, 77, 85, 90 91, 102, 159 160, 163 165, 171, 212 213, 258, 268, 278, 321, 325, 358 Testing, 83, 104, 141, 157, 183, 190, 328, 358 Themes, 42, 56, 63 64, 78, 83, 109, 126, 215, 237, 256, 260 266, 278, 363 364 Train the Trainers, 191 Transformation, 26 27, 55, 70, 333, 367, 400, 448 Transformational Leadership, 51, 53 Transition, 8, 17, 64, 111, 116, 224 225, 262, 272, 320, 349, 408, 454, 456 21st Century, 6 7, 14, 19 21, 50, 63, 105, 271 272, 320 321, 325, 330, 332, 393 394, 403, 408 Underclassmen, 449, 451 452 Undergraduate Education, 88, 90, 373, 443

505

Subject Index

Undergraduate Research, 6, 394, 398 399, 441 442, 449 451 University Museum, 243 246, 248 249, 255, 268 Urban Planning, 10, 275 282, 287 Urban, 10, 15, 29, 52, 58, 77, 148, 154, 171, 275 282, 287

262 263, 266, 268, 283, 296, 342 343, 400, 404, 406 407 Virtual Community, 19, 377, 381 Virtual Learning, 378 Virtual, 19, 377 378, 381 382, 388, 431, 447 VoiceThread, 433 434

Value Added, 353 Values, 8, 31, 34, 37, 41, 78, 80, 103, 129, 207, 212, 245, 247 248, 256, 258 259,

Web 2.0, 19, 183, 378 380, 383, 385 387, 389 390 Wiki, 295, 328 329, 428