1、Running head: DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 1Direct Instruction vs. Scientific Inquiry: Evaluating Student OutcomesNoelle Clark, Greg Eyler, Alex Rivas, Todd WagnerCalifornia State University, San BernardinoDIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 2AbstractScience is a discipline of exp
2、loration and experimentation, leading many in the scientific community to question whether the blanket approach of direct instruction and teaching to the test is the best way for our students to learn science in terms of comprehension, outcomes, and mastering scientific skills. In the absence of a s
3、ignificant amount of empirical research on the issue, we have designed a quantitative experiment based around the question: is inquiry more effective than a direct instruction model in increasing content knowledge? Through our research we compare the teaching methodologies of direct instruction to s
4、cientific inquiry in the science classroom, with student outcomes being the barometer for the success or failure of each method.The experiment consisted of using two fifth-grade classrooms as our subjects. Two different instructors, each trained in the methodology they employed (inquiry and direct i
5、nstruction), taught these classrooms the same chemistry content. All students were given identical pretests consisting of 10 multiple choice questions and, after the lessons were administered, the same test was administered as a posttest for evaluative purposes. Results of the pre-test and post-test
6、 were compared using an unpaired t-test. The makeup of the student population was heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity and representation of students with disabilities, but EL students, and gifted and talented students were not represented. As many of our qualitative research predecessors, we found t
7、he empirical results to be inconclusive thus leading us to the assumption that there is no significant statistical difference between the two differing methodologies in terms of student acquisition and short term retention. DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 3IntroductionDirect Instruction vs
8、. Scientific Inquiry: Evaluating Student Outcomes1. General Statement of the ProblemMuch has been made recently, particularly with the recent push toward academic standards and direct instruction, about the virtues and drawbacks of both scientific inquiry and direct instruction in the science classr
9、oom. Science is a discipline of exploration and experimentation, leading many in the scientific community to question whether the blanket approach of direct instruction and teaching to the test is the best way for our students to learn science in terms of comprehension, outcomes, and mastering scien
10、tific skills. The need for an answer to this debate is heightened by our countrys abysmal showings in international science comparison exams such as the TIMMS exam. In the absence of a significant amount of empirical research on the issue, we have designed an experiment that compares direct instruct
11、ion to scientific inquiry in the science classroom, with student outcomes being the barometer for the success or failure of each method.We designed and implemented a quasi-experimental research method using two fifth-grade classrooms as our subjects. Two different instructors, each trained in the me
12、thodology they employed, taught these classrooms the same chemistry content. All students were given the same pretest consisting of several multiple choice questions and, after the lessons were administered, the same test was administered as a posttest for evaluative purposes. The makeup of the stud
13、ent population was heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity and representation of students with disabilities, but EL students, and gifted and talented students were not represented. The direct instruction method adhered to instruction followed by guided and independent practice DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCI
14、ENTIFIC INQUIRY 4while the inquiry lesson was lab-based. The inquiry students had a question posed to them and were guided by the instructor during the process. 2. Review of Related LiteratureThe related literature we consulted exhibits several trends worthy of mention, particularly in their purpose
15、 and methodology. The vast majority of these reports, including “Elementary Students Retention of Environmental Science Knowledge: Connected Science Instruction versus Direct Instruction”, “Effects of Two Instructional Approaches and Peer Tutoring on Gifted and Nongifted Sixth-Grade Students Analogy
16、 Performance”, “Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science”, and “Rebeccas in the Dark: A Comparative Study of Problem-Based Learning and Direct Instruction/Experiential Learning in Two 4th-Grade Classrooms”, were directly related to the methodology that we utilized in our
17、research. All of these articles contained research questions and research methods that directly examined the efficacy of some form of scientific inquiry when compared with direct instruction. All of them also used pre- and posttests as significant forms of assessment and had at least two groups of s
18、tudents being examined separately and instructed with one of the two methods. I would place these studies under the heading of “Quasi-Experimental Designs: Direct Instruction vs. Inquiry”.Quasi-Experimental Designs: Direct Instruction vs. Inquiry Elementary Students Retention of Environmental Scienc
19、e Knowledge: Connected Science Instruction versus Direct Instruction Effects of Two Instructional Approaches and Peer Tutoring on Gifted and Nongifted Sixth-Grade Students Analogy Performance Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in ScienceDIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIR
20、Y 5 Rebeccas in the Dark: A Comparative Study of Problem-Based Learning and Direct Instruction/Experiential Learning in Two 4th-Grade ClassroomsIn “Elementary Students Retention of Environmental Science Knowledge: Connected Science Instruction versus Direct Instruction” 108 3rd-grade students were s
21、tudied. Two classes were chosen from two schools for a total of four classes. For reasons beyond the researchers control the final number of students participating in the study was 100. All four classes were comparable in size, demographic makeup, and general lessons covered. The teachers were also
22、chosen for their similar abilities and teaching experience. The students were given an identical test at three intervals during the study. There was a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a posttest for retention three months after the lesson. The test consisted of 12 multiple-choice questions that a
23、nd was researcher-designed to test for vocabulary gain and retention. A copy of the test is included in the article. Four students were also randomly selected from each class for short interviews after the lessons.The study was able to show how two different approaches to the teaching of science can
24、 contribute to our understanding of how elementary children learn science and suggests that an elementary science curriculum would be most effective if it included both teaching methods. The authors made it very clear using various literature citations that retention was the key to student growth be
25、cause it furthered their science abilities and was linked to better performance in math and reading throughout a students lifetime. In general the study supported earlier findings by other researchers. One of the major generalizations that can be drawn from this study is that students learn and reme
26、mber information best when it is linked to relevant prior knowledge or experiences. The qualitative data suggest that students prefer direct instruction from their teachers to avoid confusion about what they should be learning but that connected science DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 6ins
27、truction is also important. Both approaches should be used in a well-rounded curriculum to maximize the potential learning of students.In “Effects of Two Instructional Approaches and Peer Tutoring on Gifted and Nongifted Sixth-Grade Students Analogy Performance” the subjects of the study were 194 si
28、xth-grade students enrolled in two public school systems in Central Texas. The students were distributed among nine intact language arts classes in three middle schools. Six of the classes contained both gifted and nongifted students, and three were homogeneously grouped gifted. These classes were r
29、andomly assigned to direct instruction or inquiry approach treatments, or to a control treatment. The researchers initially predicted that gifted students would perform better directed under an inquiry approach as opposed to direct instruction. This would seem logical due to the fact that the studen
30、ts would be given more room to engage in questioning, exploration and speculation. However in contrary, the data showed gifted students performing better under direct instruction. Possible explanations include the novelty of the content. The other portion of the study looked at the relationships bet
31、ween peer tutoring and achievement. Data showed that both the receiver and deliverer benefited however, the effects of peer tutoring on the deliverer of instruction were not as powerful as the researches assumed they would be.In “Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science”,
32、 the participants were 180 incoming eighth grade students from several mid-west school districts, urban, suburban and rural. Districts sent out advance program announcements to parents and so participation was a family decision. The special summer program enabled a random assignment of students to t
33、reatment and control groups. The study took place over two weeks in June. Classes met in the morning for four days a week, covering one lesson of each unit each morning. DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 7Student pre-test and post-tests were given before and after instruction. Assessments we
34、re closely aligned to learning objectives. The assessments were comprised of 24 conceptual multiple choice questions, each with four choice options, together with a three-level indicator of confidence. The questions involved the application of the science concept rather than recall of factual knowle
35、dge. The assessments were administered by independent project evaluators. The teachers were blind to the assessment questions to eliminate possible teaching to the test.The researchers found that this study was consistent with other similar studies showing no significant differences between the two
36、modes of instruction. The researchers caution that although inquiry did not prove more effective at teaching science concepts, many science educators believe inquiry lessons, involving the 5Es, is more effective in teaching the nature of science inquiry. In “Rebeccas in the Dark: A Comparative Study
37、 of Problem-Based Learning and Direct Instruction/Experiential Learning in Two 4th-Grade Classrooms” two 4th grade classrooms were chosen which the researchers best felt represented the schools population. The classrooms were physically separate from each other although the same university professor
38、 taught both classes. The experimental subjects were not chosen randomly, but were not carefully assigned to balance numbers of any particular group, be it racial, gender, special needs, ELL status, etc. The experimental group was very uneven in terms of gender and had more students reading at grade
39、 level. The comparison group was even in terms of gender, had more students with disabilities, and had more students reading below grade level. Both groups had the same amount of ESL students. Race and socioeconomic details were not broken down for each individual group.According to the researchers,
40、 the pilot studys results indicate that problem-based learning has promise to be an effective tool in the elementary school classroom. Learning and DIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 8retention of content scores were comparable in both the comparison group and the experimental group; however
41、true gains were apparent in the Draw-a-Scientist portion, the time-on-task, and the problem-solving portion. Students in the experimental group drew less stereotypical (white males in lab coats) depictions of scientists that often depicted plain clothes and even included some self-portraits. Student
42、s in the comparison group retained their stereotypical views and even slightly reinforced them. The experimental group displayed significantly more time-on-task behavior and demonstrated much more breadth of knowledge of problem-solving tactics such as asking experts, searching the internet, reading
43、 books, conducting an experiment, and watching videos, as well as how to apply them properly. Another pair of studies, “Teaching a Biotechnology Curriculum Based on Adapted Primary Literature” and “Inquiry in Interaction: How Local Adaptations of Curricula Shape Classroom Communities” follow a simil
44、ar experimental design but with different research questions that are less closely related to our central question. The results of their research, however, have several implications for our study in terms of methodology for one study and conclusion for the other. Due to the nature of these studies a
45、s being similar in experimental design to our own but not as completely related to our research topic as the studies listed under the previous heading, we have listed them under the heading “Quasi-experimental Design: Related Educational Topics”.Quasi-experimental Design: Related Educational Topics
46、Teaching a Biotechnology Curriculum Based on Adapted Primary Literature Inquiry in Interaction: How Local Adaptations of Curricula Shape Classroom Communities“Teaching a Biotechnology Curriculum Based on Adapted Primary Literature” is significantDIRECT INSTRUCTION VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY 9for our pur
47、poses because the research that was conducted was related to the teaching of the inquiry process to students but it lacked the experimental design we employed and did not utilize an actual inquiry lesson. Rather, the researchers chose to examine the effectiveness of teaching inquiry using adapted pr
48、imary literature about biotechnology. Although no experiment was conducted about the effectiveness of using the inquiry model for instruction in the classroom, the results reflected the complex interaction of student and teacher ability that we considered carefully before designing our own experimen
49、t. The study took place in Israel and was conducted using 98 students in four different schools with four different teachers. The students were all in 11th and 12th grade and between 16 and 18 years old. In Israel students choose a major in high school. This study was directed at Biology majors who already had completed 300 class hours of biology that included the three compulsory core topics: systems in the human body, ecology, and cel
