Ms. Smith’s written reflections showed that she faced some problems while using an inquiry method. For example, some students did not participate enough; more importantly some students did not know how to get the inquiry started. In the second day reflection, Ms. Smith states: “..the groups that met were a little bit aimless today…”. The third day reflection indicated:
“Some groups are still struggling to develop a realistic plan. Many are very interested in doing a video but have no idea how they will show measurable data with a video. Some are spending all of their time working to assemble large numbers of pictures of themselves growing up. I had to rain on their parades by insisting that I was not interested in a photo album. I wanted scientific data”.
From the teacher’s reflection on day four:
“…some students are getting lazy about completing the log. Today I had to insist that they couldn’t leave the room until they had shown me a reasonable complete log entry.”
When asked how she manipulates the educational environment to maximize student understanding, her first answer was:
“I try to manipulate the educational environment in several ways. I have students work alone, in small groups, and as a whole class. I have them write, read, listen, and speak. I let them move to different areas of the room at different times. I let them change-learning partners frequently. I let them help each other as well as getting help from me. We review and preview what we are going to learn. We use a variety of materials. We talk about things in their lives that relate to what we are learning. I give feed back about how they are doing. I give praise and encouragement for hard work and cooperation.”
She was worried about classroom management and the environment more than students’ needs and questions. After the spring short course, she realized that students better understand when they have an opportunity to explain their ideas in the classroom. She stated: “I try to require students to explain their thinking, predict, and reflect before and after activities.” (Last day of the spring short course)
Changes in Perception of Classroom Practice
According to the ESTEEM evaluation of the traditional teaching video cassette, Ms. Smith could be classified as an advanced beginner. The evaluation of her inquiry teaching video showed her teaching practices improved to a “competent” level using Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) subscales. Even though she had extensive teaching experience, she still held part of her traditional views concerning teaching. She was a strict teacher who was more concerned about timing and discipline than student participation. She had her vision about what she wanted from students for assignments. She had a plan that was related to her goals or the textbook. At the beginning of the inquiry class period, only one student asked a question. Most of the time she was the one asking questions and giving ideas about what was to be searched and precisely how to conduct an experiment. On the other hand, to drive a discussion, she asked more questions or used students’ questions.
The evaluation of videocassettes which were collected after the fall short course and spring short course showed that Mrs. Smith’s practices of teaching were improved in all categories (Figure 2). Especially, in facilitating the learning process from a constructivist perspective and pedagogy related to student understanding as well as adjustments in strategies based on interactions with the students, and content knowledge were improved.
Figure 2: Changes on the ESTEEM and its four Subcategories over the One-Year Project
The Teacher’s and Students’ Perceptions of the teacher’s use of Constructivist Teaching Practices
Ms. Smith’s responses on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES-T) and her students’ responses on the CLES-S indicated that there were a difference between the teacher’s and the students’ perceptions concerning the use of constructivist practices. Figure 4 shows the comparison of CLES-T and CLES-S which shows the patterns of differences between teacher and students in their perceptions of Personal Relevance (PR), Student Uncertainty (SU), Critical Voice (CV), Shared Control (SC) and Student Negotiation (SN) based on total mean scores.
Figure 3 shows the CLES-T analyses. It indicates very interesting results in terms of Ms. Smith’s opinions about her use of constructivist practices which considerably changed over time. She started to see herself more clearly than she did six months earlier. Even though she had an idea what constructivist practices should be, the workshop led her to become more knowledgeable about how to use inquiry in the classroom. She became more unbiased about her classroom practices.
Figure 3: Comparing Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 Teacher’s Perceptions of Teacher Use of Constructivist Practices
Students are good data sources for professional development programs because they are directly affected by the instruction. During fall 2003, Ms. Smith believed that the teacher needs to have control. After the spring short course her perception of student control is improved which means during fall semester her belief about teaching was teacher-centered however in spring her teaching approach become more student-centered which led students to have control over their own learning. However, in the spring of 2004 the CLES-S and CLES-T scores on Shared Control subcategory was conflicting because while students think they have more control on the learning environment, the teacher think the just opposite (figure 4).
Figure 4: Comparison between Teacher and Student Perceptions of the Teacher’s Use of Constructivist Practices
The comparison of CLES-T spring and fall scores with CLES-S spring score (figure 4) indicate that students’ perception of teacher’s use of constructivist practices is more positive than the teacher’s perception of her use of constructivist practices in terms of Personal Relevance (PR) which teaching practices focused on the connectedness of the school to students’ out of school experiences, Critical Voice (CV) which teacher practices facilitated student explaining and justifying their newly developing ideas and Student Negotiation (SN) which allowed students to interact verbally with the purpose of building scientific knowledge. Neither teacher nor the students perceived a change in the extent to which teacher practices allowed students to experience the tentativeness of science differed as measured by Scientific Uncertainty (SC) subscale.
On the PTL posttest she responded: “Where possible, I try to allow students choice and opportunity to show creativity and to work in groups.”
Before the summer workshop, she tended to rely on the textbook rather than engaging students with questions. However, she wanted her students to go beyond the “cookbook experiments” and to experience to the joy of learning. Ms. Smith’s belief on the PTL pretest about the best learning situation for her students was: “I try to have relaxed setting in my classroom. I try to have the students work together, help and support each other….. I try to downplay competitiveness in most situations and to help the students see how it can be win/win instead.”
Textbooks can be a good source to start student inquiry, but letting students ask engaging questions encourages them to take ownership of the problem (Hollenbeck, 2003). As the Standards indicate, “when a textbook does not engage students with a question, but begins by assessing an experiment, an essential element of inquiry is missing” (NRC 2000, p.28).
.
Copyright (C) 2007 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 8, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2007). All Rights Reserved.
