Enhance Students’ Learning and Engagement during Inquiry-Based Science

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Robyn Gillies	--	3274	2023-12-18 10:31:30	\|
2	format correct	Mona Zou	Meta information modification	3274	2023-12-21 02:08:56	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/educsci13121242

Much attention over the last two decades has been given to inquiry-based learning in science as a way of capturing students’ interest and participation in learning. However, while the research on inquiry-based learning consistently demonstrates that students do attain higher learning outcomes than peers who are taught by traditional transmission approaches, little research has been attached to researching the key elements of this approach that contribute to its success.

inquiry-based science cooperative learning dialogic teaching and learning

1. Inquiry-Based Teaching in Science

Given the importance attached to teaching science using an inquiry-based approach, this section reviews current meta-analyses that report on the effects of inquiry-based teaching on students’ academic outcomes in primary and secondary schools. It also reviews the research on teachers actively guiding or structuring the learning tasks in contrast to more open-inquiry situations where guidance is less evident or traditional transmission approaches to teaching science.

Implementing and managing inquiry-based science instruction involves extensive changes in classroom management practices ^[1]. The National Research Council ^[2], in a report on teaching and learning science in K–8 classrooms, emphasise that if students are to become proficient in science, they need to be able to: “know, use, and interpret scientific explanations; generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; understand the nature and development of scientific evidence, and participate productively in scientific practices and discourse” (^[2], p. 36).

These proficiencies, the NRC ^[2] argues, are interrelated and connected and represent ways of thinking about scientific ideas where conceptual understandings of natural systems are linked to the ability to develop explanations of different phenomena and conduct empirical investigations to evaluate knowledge claims. However, if students are to engage productively in science, they need to understand how to participate in scientific discussions where they are able to listen to others, share their thinking, and be willing to ask questions to clarify their understandings or challenge others’ perspectives. Such ways of thinking, though, only develop when teachers actively induct students into these ways of thinking and reasoning and provide opportunities for them to interact with others in the context of inquiry-based learning.

Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs ^[3], in a meta-analysis of 37 empirical studies of inquiry-based science published between 1996 and 2006, reported that inquiry-based teaching contributed to improved student achievements with an overall mean effect size of 0.50. Furthermore, this result was greater than previous meta-analyses reviewed by the authors (see p. 303). Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs ^[3] also found that studies that contrasted epistemic (E) activities (e.g., nature of science, conclusions based on evidence, or generating and revising new theoretical perspectives) and the combination of procedural, epistemic, and social (PES) activities had the highest mean effect sizes, with mean effect sizes of 0.75 (epistemic) and 0.72 (PES). Moreover, studies that involved activities that were led by teachers had mean effect sizes that were about 0.40 larger than those which were led by students, indicating that students achieved higher learning outcomes when teachers actively guided the learning tasks.

In summary, meta-analyses by Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, and Briggs ^[3], Firman, Ertikanto, and Abdurrahman ^[4], and Heindl ^[5] demonstrate that inquiry-based learning in science has a positive impact on students’ academic learning in science in comparison to peers who learn via traditional transmission approaches. Furthermore, inquiry-learning is more likely to have a greater impact when teachers actively guide the inquiry process.

2. Promoting Scientific Thinking and Reasoning

It is critically important that teachers induct students into different ways of thinking and reasoning by explicitly teaching and modelling how to express ideas, ask for assistance, challenge alternative perspectives, and reason logically. It is well known that learning occurs when students have opportunities to discuss ideas with others, and emphasis in recent years has been on encouraging teachers to engage students in class discussions where they are able to interact with their teachers and peers on problem-based topics that challenge their curiosity and understandings ^[6]. This type of teaching is known as dialogic teaching, and it is designed to encourage students to be more active in their learning by expressing their thoughts and understandings and asking questions to clarify topics they do not understand. Interactions between teachers and students not only enable students to demonstrate what they know but they also enable teachers to gain an understanding of any misconceptions that students may hold. This allows teachers to adjust their teaching so any misunderstandings can be discussed and clarified.

Alexander ^[6] maintained that dialogic teaching is predicated on teachers and students addressing learning tasks together; listening to each other, sharing ideas, and considering alternative perspectives; encouraging students to share their ideas without feeling self-conscious or embarrassed; and building on each other’s ideas in order to develop rational and logical solutions. During this process, the teacher needs to guide classroom discussions with the purpose of achieving specific educational goals.

When this occurs, Alexander ^[6] maintained, a number of changes occur in how talk is enacted in the classroom, with more talk occurring among students and between students and teachers. Student and teacher exchanges tend to be longer, with teachers building on student responses to prompt and facilitate students’ thinking. Students, in turn, begin to build on each other’s ideas as they seek to extend others’ ideas or clarify misunderstandings. Their responses become more diverse as they learn to provide more explanations, justifications, and suppositions on topics they are discussing. In short, students are initiating more talk as they speculate, think aloud, and help each other as they realise that they can be active in their own learning. There is also more participation by children who are less academically able, as the chance to talk provides them with the opportunity to express their opinions and demonstrate competence. This, in turn, Alexander notes, leads to “the interactive culture in these classrooms is becoming more inclusive” (^[6], p. 108).

In a comprehensive account of the Dialogic Teaching Project, Alexander ^[7] discusses the development and randomised control trial that was funded by the UK Education Endowment Fund (EEF) between 2014 and 2017. The purpose of the intervention was to invigorate classroom talk to promote student engagement, learning, and attainment in the context of social and educational disadvantage. The intervention’s professional development for teachers included a full day’s induction program where they were introduced to dialogic teaching and the professional development program that would be implemented across the following 20 school weeks. This included mentoring from experienced teachers in the schools, guided planning and target setting with the mentees, reflections by teachers on lesson video recordings of classroom talk, reading materials, and mentoring from the Dialogic Project Team. Data were collected from 76 schools across three United Kingdom cities that met the criteria of having at least 25% of their students eligible for free school midday meals (a marker for social disadvantage).

Alexander ^[7] reported that the children in the Dialogic Teaching Schools gained two additional months’ progress in English and Science and one additional month’s progress in mathematics in comparison to children in the non-intervention schools. Furthermore, the children who were eligible for a free school lunch (marker of disadvantage) made a further two months’ progress on standardised assessments in English, Science, and Mathematics compared to their peers in the non-intervention schools. Interestingly, independent analysis of the video-recorded lesson episodes showed that classroom talk in the intervention classrooms began to become more dialogic early in the intervention, with marked differences between the intervention and the non-intervention classrooms. Differences in talk were evident in both teacher and student talk by week 19, with talk becoming more dialogic as teachers and students spent more time listening to each other and incorporating each other’s ideas into their discussions. Additionally, the principals, mentors, and teachers reported that the Dialogic Teaching approach had a positive effect on students’ self-confidence and participation in learning.

While meaningful gains were recorded in the children’s progress in the intervention schools in comparison to their peers in the non-intervention schools, feedback from the teachers in the intervention schools felt it would take longer than 20 weeks to fully embed the Dialogic Teaching approach in their curricula and suggested that the study should be scaled up to a longer period of time to see the full effects. The outcomes achieved by the Dialogic Teaching Project led Alexander ^[8] to acclaim that “evidence shows that well-founded classroom dialogue improves student engagement and learning” (^[8], p. 1).

The results obtained from the Dialogic Teaching Project ^[7] led to Alexander ^[9] developing a framework on eight dialogic teaching repertoires designed to help teachers to engage with the different forms of classroom talk between and among teachers and students including the key areas of: questioning, extending talk to open up students’ thinking, discussing, deliberating and arguing, and finally, argumentation, where students learn to advance reasons and evidence and challenge and refute claims to solve a problem or address an identified question. (NB: Repertoires 1 and 2, involving Interactive Culture [how talk should be managed] and Interactive Settings [ways students are grouped], will be discussed in the section on Cooperative Learning).

When teachers engage in dialogic teaching with their students, Alexander ^[9] notes, there is more talk about how the participants will interact with each other as well as the procedures they will follow. Teachers, in turn, often ask more open questions that encourage students to participate in the discussion, enabling students to feel more welcome and able to contribute in ways that are more mutually beneficial to the discussants. Boyd and Markarian ^[10] also noted that dialogic teaching is apparent when teachers engage in conversations with students where they actively listen to what students have to say, encourage them to share their thinking, or they ask questions to clarify issues. In dialogic classrooms, students are encouraged to consider alternative propositions, make their thinking explicit, and support each other so both students and teachers build on each other’s ideas as they develop “coherent lines of thinking and enquiry” (^[11], p. 8). The following section on Dialogic Teaching in Classrooms discusses the way dialogic teaching is enacted in classrooms by teachers and students and the evidence that supports this approach to teaching and learning.

3. Dialogic Teaching in Classrooms

Teaching and learning in the dialogic classroom, Reznitskaya ^[12] argues, is characterized by authority over the content and form of discourse shared among participating group members, where students accept responsibilities for turn taking, asking questions, reflecting on each other’s answers, and suggesting new topics. Teachers challenge students’ answers, ask for justifications, and provide meaningful feedback to help students negotiate and construct new meanings. These types of dialogic discussions promote meta-level reflections that challenge students to seek clarification and connect ideas across contexts. In so doing, they learn to elaborate on their thinking as they collaborate with others to construct new understandings and mutually agreed-upon knowledge.

Garcia-Carrion, Aguileta, Padros, and Ramis-Salas ^[13], in a review of the social impact of dialogic teaching and learning, noted that there is a large volume of evidence from small- and large-scale studies that dialogic teaching contributes to academic achievement and social cohesion, resulting in classrooms that are more inclusive as students are invited to take an active and meaningful role in discussions. In effect, it transforms classroom relationships as students realise their contributions are valued as they cooperate to reach a common agreement, enabling them to complete tasks.

Others who have investigated the role of different types of talk in classrooms are Scott and Mortimer ^[14], who developed a framework for analysing the different ways discussions are undertaken in science classrooms in secondary schools and the functions they serve. One type of interaction that they highlighted is the interactive and dialogic approach. This involves the teacher listening to students’ ideas, probing their thinking on a particular topic, and working together to explore different ideas and suggestions. This type of interaction tends to be characterized by high levels of interaction as teachers and students participate in animated discussions with each other.

A second form of interaction is the interactive and authoritative approach, where the teacher focuses mainly on one specific point of view and leads students through a series of questions with the aim of helping them to gain a clearer understanding of the topic. In this type of interaction, the teacher is active in guiding the discussion with the students to help them develop an understanding of the specific goals of the lesson ^[15]. Scott, Mortimer, and Aguiar ^[16] argued that changes between these styles of interaction are an unavoidable part of teaching science as the interactive and authoritative approach is often used to introduce new information and ideas while the dialogic and interactive approach provides opportunities to investigate the information presented in more detail.

There is no doubt that successful inquiry-based learning experiences are predicated on teachers creating learning environments where students are not only amazed and challenged by the experiences they have, but also are able to interact with their teacher and peers to ask questions, seek clarification, offer explanations, justify their positions, and build on the ideas of others: in short, dialogue with others ^[17]. This type of interaction, Lehesvouri, Ramnarain, and Viiri ^[18] argue, improves students’ willingness to engage in dialogic exchanges during inquiry-based learning activities. Moreover, it is through teacher interactions that students learn how to engage in appropriate ways of interacting in different classroom settings ^[19].

Rojas-Drummond, Littleton, and Velez ^[20] report on a study that investigated dialogic literacy, essentially the interplay between talking, reading, and writing, among 120 Grade 6 students in two primary schools as they collaborated in small groups on a literacy task involving reading and writing. The study utilized an intervention program called Learning Together which uses collaborative learning to enhance the development of children’s oracy and literacy skills. One school implemented the intervention program (experimental condition), while the other continued with its regular literacy program (control condition).

Collaborative learning is critically important for helping students to understand the guidelines that they need to follow if they are to explore topics together. The ground rules that were proposed to help students to understand how they were to collaborate as they worked together were adopted from Mercer, Wegerif, and Dawes ^[21] and included:

(a): All relevant information needs to be shared.
(b): Group members need to reach agreement on all topics under discussion.
(c): Members need to accept responsibility for group decisions.
(d): Members need to provide reasons for positions adopted.
(e): Members need to accept challenges from others both within and outside the group.
(f): Alternative propositions need to be considered before the group makes a decision.
(g): All group members are encouraged to participate in the discussion.

Concurrently to establishing the guidelines for collaborate discussions, Rojas-Drummond, Littleton, and Velez ^[20] reported that the teachers played a key role in encouraging students to share their thoughts, outline their reasons for adopting a particular position, and explicitly state what they know about a topic and share this information with the class. They also modelled ways of using language that children could adopt for themselves, in peer group discussions and other settings, and they provided opportunities for students to make extended contributions to the discussion, enabling them to express their current understandings or communicate their difficulties ^[22].

The Learning Together program involved 18 sessions of 90 min each across a seven-month period in which the students in the experimental condition worked together on a variety of oral and written communication tasks ^[20]. Data on the written summaries produced by the students in both conditions were analysed using the Test of Textual Integration (TTI). The results indicated that the students in the experimental condition scored significantly higher on the quality of the text they produced and on each of the partial scores: title (comprehensive, informative, and concise), main ideas (six main ideas), organization of ideas (coherence of ideas), and level of expression (sophisticated expression).

Follow-up micro-analysis of the discussions and co-regulatory processes of four student triads (two experimental and two control triads) in the Rojas-Drummond, Littleton, and Velez ^[20] study while solving the group version of the Test of Textual Production (TTP) is reported in Rojas-Drummond, Omedo, Cruz, and Espinosa ^[23]. The purpose was to identify how the interactive, communicative, and co-regulatory processes emerged in each group, as well as how these processes might give way to the utilization of these processes in the written composition in the Learning Together groups (experimental groups). The results showed that the experimental student triads (in comparison to their control peers) gradually learned to adopt a more collaborative, dialogic, and strategic way of working together. The results highlighted the key role dialogic discussions and co-regulatory processes play in facilitating the development of written text in primary students.

Given that the knowledge-building practices of scientists are essentially social and collaborative, cooperative small group learning provides opportunities for students to investigate different observable trends, discuss potential solutions and research questions, identify the data to be collected and analysed, and communicate their understandings to others in ways that are seen as logical and well-thought through. However, many teachers experience difficulties in establishing cooperative learning experiences where students have opportunities to share, critique, and evaluate possible explanations for the phenomena under investigation. The following section will discuss some of the perceived difficulties teachers face.

4. Cooperative Learning: Creating an Interactive Culture and Setting

Inquiry-based science requires students to cooperate to investigate problems, ask questions, challenge each other’s conceptions or misconceptions, and negotiate acceptable solutions to the problem at hand. When students cooperate, they learn to listen to what others have to say and reflect on their points of view, share their thinking on issues, challenge and rebut misconceptions, and engage in the practices of building new understandings and knowledge that promote learning. However, creating cooperative groups where students are able to discuss tasks in a meaningful way can be quite challenging unless students have a clear understanding of how they are expected to cooperate and what they are expected to achieve ^[24].

Productive classroom talk, Alexander ^[8] argues, requires developing a shared understanding of the way talk should be managed, often requiring that some explicit ground rules are established. These rules may eventually become part of the classroom routine, so students understand that these are the accepted norms for communicating, as occurs when an interactive culture is promoted. Alexander also maintained that talk is affected by the way students are grouped. Interaction is facilitated when students work in small groups (often three to four students) where they can see and hear each other as they work on a designated task.

In a review of five studies where teachers explicitly structured cooperative small group learning, Gillies ^[25] reported that students demonstrated higher levels of cooperation, group interaction, and learning than peers who learnt in unstructured small groups. Furthermore, “the benefits of cooperative learning are enhanced when groups do not exceed four members, are gender-balanced and of mixed-ability, instruction is designed to meet the groups’ needs, and teachers have been trained in how to implement this pedagogical strategy” (^[25], p. 47). These results were consistent across both primary and high school settings.

While cooperative learning is well established as a pedagogical approach that can be implemented in science classrooms to promote students’ engagement and learning ^[26], establishing the conditions for it to be employed effectively can be a challenge both for the teachers and the students involved. Teachers are often reluctant to embrace cooperative learning possibly because of the challenge it poses to their control of the instructional process, where teaching tends to be more teacher-centred rather than learner-centred. Furthermore, the changes that teachers need to make to accommodate this organisational change to how they teach and the personal commitment they need to make to sustain their efforts are often regarded as further impositions on their role as teachers. It may also be due to a lack understanding of how to embed cooperative learning pedagogy into their classroom curricula to foster open communication and engagement between teachers and students to create learning environments where students feel supported and emotionally safe and secure.

References

Harris, C.; Rooks, D. Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2010, 21, 227–240.
National Research Council (NRC). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; 387p.
Furtak, E.; Seidel, T.; Iverson, H.; Briggs, D. Experimental and quasi-Experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2012, 82, 300–329.
Firman, M.; Ertikanto, C.; Abdurrahman, A. Description of meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning of science in improving students’ inquiry skills. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1157, 022018.
Heindl, M. Inquiry-based learning and the pre-requisite for its use in science at school: A meta-analysis. J. Pedagog. Res. 2019, 3, 52–61.
Alexander, R. Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In Exploring Talk in School; Mercer, N., Hodgkinson, S., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 91–114.
Alexander, R. Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Res. Pap. Educ. 2018, 33, 561–598.
Alexander, R. Whose discourse? Dialogic pedagogy for a post-truth world. J. Dialogic Pedagog. Int. J. 2019, 7, 1–19.
Alexander, R. A Dialogic Teaching Companion; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; 246p.
Boyd, M.; Markarian, W. Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Lang. Educ. 2011, 6, 515–534.
Wolfe, S.; Alexander, R. Argumentation and Dialogic Teaching: Alternative Pedagogies for a Changing World. 2008. Available online: http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/index.php/publications/ (accessed on 15 December 2013).
Reznitskaya, A. Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language during literature discussions. Read. Teach. 2012, 65, 446–456.
Garcia-Carrion, R.; Aguileta, G.; Padros, M.; Ramis-Salas, M. Implications of social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 140.
Scott, P.; Mortimer, E. Meaning Making in high school science: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In Research and the Quality of Science Education; Boersman, M., Goedhart, M., de Jong, O., Eikelhof, H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 395–406.
Aguiar, O.G.; Mortimer, E.F.; Scott, P. Learning from responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47, 174–193.
Scott, P.; Mortimer, E.; Aguiar, O. The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Sci. Educ. 2006, 90, 605–631.
Scott, P. Talking a way to understanding in science classrooms. In Exploring Talk in School; Mercer, N., Hodgkinson, S., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 17–36.
Lehesvouri, S.; Ramnarain, U.; Viiri, J. Challenging transmission modes of Teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-centredness through dialogicity. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1049–1069.
Webb, N. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 79, 1–28.
Rojas-Drummond, S.; Littleton, K.; Velez, M. Developing reading Comprehension through collaborative learning. J. Res. Reading 2014, 37, 138–158.
Mercer, N.; Wegerif, R.; Dawes, L. Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. Br. Educ. Res. J. 1999, 25, 95–111.
Rojas-Drummond, S.; Mercer, N. Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2003, 39, 99–111.
Rojas-Drummond, S.; Omedo, M.; Cruz, I.; Espinosa, M. Dialogic interactions, co-regulation and the appropriation of text composition abilities in primary school children. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2020, 24, 1–13.
Gillies, R.; Ashman, A. Behavior and interactions of children in cooperative Groups in lower and middle elementary grades. J. Educ. Psychol. 1998, 90, 746–757.
Gillies, R. Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2003, 39, 35–49.
Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2002, 22, 95–105.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Education, Scientific Disciplines

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Robyn M. Gillies

View Times: 363

Update Date: 21 Dec 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm