Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science

1. Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science Funded by the National Science Foundation’s Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI/NSF 04-553) Award #0437655 The opinions expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the researchers

2. Background to the Study • Inquiry-based or direct instruction in science? • Long-standing educational and political debates • Pendulum swings • Direct Prevalent in past • InquiryNational Science Education Standards • Constructivism? • A theory of learning – either way

3. Research Evidence? • We know about • Experientially-based √ • Active-engagement √ • But these can occur in both Inquiry and Direct • Both can be ‘hands-on’ and ‘minds-on’ if so designed.

4. Our Question • Is NOT whether active-engagement experiential-based learning of science is more effective than passive non-experiential learning • But IS whether an inquiry approach or a direct approach to experientially-based instruction is more effective for science concept development • …when both approaches are expertly designed and well executed • This is the question our research addressed.

5. Inquiry-based Science Instruction • There are now many inquiry-based curricula and lessons • Their evaluations show these to be ‘successful.’ • But compared to what? • Assumption is that the merit/superiority of inquiry science instruction is well-established • However, meta-analysis of many such studies (Educational Development Council, 2007) found • Not sufficiently unconfounded to draw the inferences • Research rigor has declined from 1984 - 2002

6. Threats to Validity of Studies • Few controlled comparative studies • Pitted against poor or nebulous ‘traditional’ instruction • Few use randomized assignments or quasi-experimental controls for differences • Evaluations not independent of developers or researchers • Insufficient specification to allow replication • Fidelity: implementation not compared to intended instruction

7. Direct Instruction • Well-designed direct instruction • Some relevant work: • Kirschner et.al. – Why mimimally-guided instruction does not work • Klahr & Nigam – ‘Direct’ vs. ‘discovery’ • Ausubel – Issue is meaningful learning vs. rote learning

8. Instructional Context 5 experienced middle school science teachers 8th grade students responding to flyers sent home by school district offices 2 week voluntary summer program with students randomly assigned to treatment group In-class instruction only; intrinsic motivation

9. Research Framework • Tenets • Specificity Fidelity Objectivity Transparency

10. Inquiry or Direct? Specificity

11. Specific about… The meanings of Inquiry and Direct The nature and design of instructional units The assessment

12. A. What do wemeanby‘Inquiry’ and ‘Direct’ Instruction? Single-word descriptors are vague, ambiguous and open to (mis)interpretation Such as “inquiry, direct, discovery, didactic, conventional/traditional, lecture, active-engagement, hands-on …” We need to specify models for each mode

13. 1. Model of Guided-Inquiry Science Instruction The Learning Cycle Karplus Cycle

14. Karplus Cycle Diagram Epistemology: Exploration leads to concept formation Inductive aspects (Note: 5-E Learning Cycle has Karplus at its heart)

15. 2. Model of Direct Instruction Epistemology:Presentation then illustration/confirmationDeductive The Direct-Active Cycle

16. No Caricatures or Straw-man Comparisons Direct caricature: Pure didactic presentation with passive reception/absorption Inquiry caricature: Open discovery (unguided chaos) Hands-on alone does not make it inquiry

17. Lessons as Composites Lessons have many constituent parts All lessons are composites Never 100% inquiry or direct throughout To attempt this would be poor instruction generally

18. The essential difference? What then is the essential difference between Inquiry and Direct? “How students come to the concept” Through exploration or are they told upfront? This is the Active Agent thatdiffers between modes Lessons may have other Common Constituents

19. ‘Active Agent’ Example from Dynamics How do students come to the force-motion law? i. By exploring system behavior and proposing a law, OR ii. By being given the law and confirming system behavior. Added value, beyond just content knowledge? Besides acquiring knowledge of the law, what else do students learn or gain, in one mode or the other?

20. B. THE INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS The heart of the studyY – Two important science topics – Significant conceptual development sequence Each written in Inquiry and Direct modes Student and teacher booklets for each

23. Essential Similarities • Content • Objectives/goals • Equipment/materials • Practice problems • Assessment • Essential Differences • Sequence • Evidence before claims • Claims before evidence • Teacher’s role • Asks… • Tells… • Student’s experience • … finds out • … confirms Two Approaches (Inquiry/Direct)

24. InquiryandDirect Instructional Models DIRECT (confirmatory approach) • Delivery/Explanation • Verification • Application Student learns by receiving, verifying, and applying scientific concepts & laws INQUIRY (investigative approach) • Exploration • Guided Concept Development • Application Student learns by experiencing scientific inquiry, guided toward developing and applying scientific concepts & laws (based on Karplus Learning Cycle)

25. C. THE ASSESSMENT Nature and quality of assessment is crucial The project data depends on it Tests understanding of the main science concepts Problem-based Ability to apply concepts in (relatively) new situations Bloom taxonomy levels 2 and 3 Conceptual MCQ form ‘Assessment as curriculum’ - examples as indication

26. Assessment: examplesPrediction question

27. Assessment: examplesExplanation question

29. Assessment instruments 22-question set for each topic unit 2 to 4 questions on each central concept Identical Pre- and Post-tests Ascertain gain

30. Fidelity • “Prepare and Verify” • Prepare • Monitor • Evaluate

31. Objectivity • Teachers blind to the assessments — no teaching to the (known) test • Independent evaluators marked the assessments blind to student group assignments • Independent observers rated teaching: to nature and degree of inquiry or direct

32. Transparency Transparency of research: We make available details of what the research involved, thus facilitating possible replication. Our work is made available in detail at http://www.wmich.edu/way2go/

33. Analysis Data aggregated over 2 years of trials (2007, 2008) N=180 students (72 Direct, 108 Inquiry… to date) Pre- and Post- assessments yielding each student’s raw percentage gain scores Student gain scores normalized Comparisons of both raw and normalized gain scores across various groups (modes of instruction, teachers) (t-test, ANOVA, α=.05)

34. Findings (Example of raw % gains) Gain 14.1%, SD=16.4, is statistically significant (t(107)=8.925, p< .001), effect size (Cohen’s d) .67 Total 07-08 DYNAMICS gain 9.7%, SD=13.5, is statistically significant (t(179)=9.655, p< .001), with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of .54 (effect size of 1 for normalized gain) Total 07-08 LIGHT gain 13.6%, SD=15.3, is statistically significant (t(179)=11.934, p< .001), with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of .69 (effect size of 1.4 for normalized gain)

35. Findings (Light Unit Summary)

36. Findings (Dynamics Unit Summary)

37. Findings Findings LIGHT Unit –Two Trials (2007, 2008) Direct vs. Inquiry normalized gain mean difference of 3.8% was not statistically significant (t(178)=.755, p=.451) (std. error diff. 5.1, effect size Cohen’s d=.12) Ann (Direct) and Tom (Inquiry) had a mean difference in raw gain of 7.6%, which was statistically significant (t(73)=2.132, p=.036), but the mean difference between their normalized gain scores was not (t(73)=1.857, p=.067) DYNAMICS Unit –Two Trials (2007, 2008) Direct vs. Inquiry mean difference of 3.1% was not statistically significant (t(178)=.717, p=.474) (std. error diff. 4.4, effect size Cohen’s d=.11)

38. Conclusions • Given natural class and teacher variation in realistic classroom situations,good inquiry and direct instruction led to similar understanding of science concepts and principles in comparable times. • Thus advocacy of either method cannot be based on science content acquisition alone. • Inquiry-based instruction offers significant potential advantages for science education by modeling scientific inquiry during concept learning: these concomitant benefits would need to be studied in research for that purpose. • However for science concept understanding, expertly designed instructional units, sound active-engagement lessons, and good teaching are as important as whether a lesson is cast as inquiry or direct.

39. http://www.wmich.edu/way2go/ Funded by the National Science Foundation’s Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI/NSF 04-553) Award #0437655 The opinions expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the researchers.

40. Controlled comparative study Treatment and control groupsActual classroom situations

42. General Design Considerations Substance Coherent development Conceptual Challenging Experiential Standards Learning objectives Clear main focus ‘Hands-on / minds-on’ Engagement Reinforcing examples Application Reflection Length?