Surveying Students' Attitudes and Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, DC 20064

Surveying Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry and Open-Inquiry Laboratories Suparna Chatterjee, Vickie M. Williamson,* Kathleen McCann, and M. Larry Peck Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3255; *[email protected]

Laboratory experiments provide the place for students to experience the concepts taught in the chemistry lecture course. As a consequence of the National Science Education Standards’ emphasis on scientific inquiry, chemistry departments across the country are being challenged to incorporate inquiry experiences into laboratory courses (1–4). Authors have defined inquiry (5, 6), outlined the difficulties associated with teaching inquiry, and have suggested remedies for those difficulties (7–9). Inquiry-based laboratories have been produced and implemented in a number of chemistry courses (10–14). Inquiry laboratories can be separated into guided- and open-inquiry types (6). Guided-inquiry laboratories are experiments in which students follow experimental directions, gather data on certain specified variables, and through the analysis process establish relationships among the variables from their own data. Open-inquiry laboratories are experiments in which students design and perform their own procedures to investigate a question. Open-inquiry laboratories apply the relationships previously developed via guided-inquiry activities in a new setting or examine a new aspect of that relationship. In order to develop more challenging laboratory courses, traditional “verification” or cookbook experiments have been converted to guided-inquiry laboratories (15). Some authors have given specific directions for converting traditional labs into inquiry-based laboratories (e.g., 16 ) and have commented on how to assess these types of laboratories (17). Evidence of inquiry methods affecting test scores has also been shown in the literature (18–19). The theoretical background for inquiry-based teaching rests with constructivism, which was built on the work of Piaget (20), von Glasersfeld (21), and others. Constructivism is the idea that knowledge is not transmitted but is constructed or built from interactions with people and materials. Constructivism further encompasses the ideas that initial learning is context specific, that learning builds on prior knowledge, and that carefully planned activities are required to facilitate this building of new knowledge and its incorporation into existing knowledge frameworks (22, 23). Inquiry-based activities can provide opportunities for construction of concept understanding. One effort to incorporate inquiry-based experiments in the general chemistry laboratory course occurred at a large, southwestern university. The experiments performed by the students enrolled in the two-semester general chemistry classes were from an inquiry-based laboratory manual that had been in use at the institution for almost four years (24). The laboratory manual contained both guided-inquiry and open-inquiry experiments, with a few skill-building laboratories. These skill-building laboratories were included in the manual to teach students new techniques, such as using vacuum filtration, doing titrations, and so forth.

Although an article describing student comments on inquiry laboratories can be found in the literature (25), it only mentions brief reflections that students had written about inquiry-based laboratories. No articles describing students’ perceptions and their attitudes toward both guided- and openinquiry laboratories have been located in the literature. The purpose of this study is to evaluate students’ perceptions and attitudes toward both types of inquiry laboratories—guided inquiry and open inquiry. A number of investigators have described a link between attitudes and achievement. Freedman (26) found that a hands-on laboratory program for ninth grade physical science influenced attitudes, which in turn influenced achievement. House (27) found that student attitudes were better predictors of grade achievement in introductory college chemistry than ACT composite scores or number of years of high school mathematics. Osborne et al. (28) in their review of 20 years of literature reported that many studies found moderately positive correlations between attitudes and achievement. This review also raised the question of the causal link between attitudes and achievement concerning which is the dependent variable, with the authors cautioning that “perhaps the only tenable position is that the two are inescapably linked in a complex interaction” (p 1072). Although it is possible to have high achievement without having a positive attitude, most would agree with the findings of Beaton et al. (29)—who investigated the measures used in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study—that there is a consistent relationship between attitude and achievement. Research Questions This study focused on the following three research questions:

1. Can students differentiate between a guided-inquiry laboratory and an open-inquiry laboratory?

2. What are the attitudes of students toward guided inquiry laboratories and open inquiry laboratories?

3. Which do students perceive that they learn more with: a guided-inquiry laboratory or an open-inquiry laboratory?

Methodology Participants Study participants were students enrolled in general chemistry courses in the spring semester of 2005. Of the initial 706 students, 703 students were included in the study; the other three students failed to complete the study materials. A total of 274 males and 429 females comprised the study, which is typical for

© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 12 December 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education

1427

Research: Science and Education Table 1. Distribution of Students’ Responses Identifying Inquiry Types Scenarios Correctly Identified

Number (N = 703)

Percentage

Guided and Open Inquiry Correct

322

45.80

Only Guided Inquiry Correct

225

32.01

Only Open Inquiry Correct

54

7.68

None Correct

102

14.51

this course as this institution has an engineering chemistry course with high male enrollment. Included in the 703 students surveyed were 470 first-year students, 162 second-year students, 56 third-year students, and 15 fourth-year students. A total of 183 students were enrolled in the first-semester course; 520 students were enrolled in the second-semester course. Typically, out of the ten laboratory experiments conducted each semester, eight were guided-inquiry experiments and two were open-inquiry experiments. For the manual used, open-inquiry experiments required a formal lab write up, which included the following sections: problem statement, procedures, data analysis, and conclusions. Students may have done one skill-building laboratory in addition to these ten laboratories. All institutional review board requirements were met and all subjects in the study granted consent. Instruments The instrument used in this study consisted of a survey that was given at the end of the semester to the students enrolled in both semesters of general chemistry. The survey was completed on the last day of class and consisted of three parts. Part 1 contained biographical questions. Part 2 asked students to identify five novel scenarios as either guided-inquiry or open-inquiry laboratories, or neither guided- nor open-inquiry laboratories. The scenarios were new to the students and were not similar to

the experiments that they had done in the laboratory portion of their classes. The second and third scenarios were examples of guided inquiry, and the first, fourth, and fifth scenarios were examples of open inquiry. It was a purposeful decision to have an odd number of scenarios so as to not imply an equal number of each type of laboratory. To construct the guided-inquiry and open-inquiry scenarios in Part 2 of the survey, the concept statements or relationships were chosen first, and then, based on the concept statement, each scenario was written. These scenarios were validated by two chemistry experts who both hold doctoral degrees and are experienced in authoring guided- and open-inquiry laboratories. See the online supplement, Appendix A, for Parts 1 and 2 of the survey. Part 3 is the Inquiry Laboratory Attitude Survey (see the online supplement, Appendix B). After students had completed Parts 1 and 2 of the survey, those materials were turned in before Part 3 of the survey was distributed to prevent students from changing their responses on Part 2 of their surveys. This was important because descriptions of guided- and open-inquiry labs that were done by the students in each semester were given in Part 3. Two chemical education experts who had experience writing inquiry laboratories confirmed the categorization of the two examples of guided-inquiry and the two examples of openinquiry laboratories. Part 3 of the survey was used to evaluate students’ attitudes toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories, so it was important that students had examples of these types of laboratories that were done during the semester. This survey was based on a semantic differential format (30–32), with questions similar to those of the Birnie–Abraham–Renner Quick Attitude Differential, the BAR (33). In this part of the survey, the students circled number 1 or number 2 if they strongly agreed or agreed with the statement on the left, respectively. They circled 3 if they were neutral to statements on either side, and they circled number 4 or number 5 if they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement on the right, respectively.

Table 2. Distribution of Results of the Semantic Differential Survey Statements about Guided Inquiry Left Statement

Agreement with Left Statement, %

Neutral, %

Agreement with Right Statement, %

Right Statement

Mean (SD) Total N = 322

1

I like guided-inquiry laboratory.

266 82.61

33 10.25

23 7.14

I do not like guided-inquiry laboratory.

1.80 (1.00)

2

Guided-inquiry laboratories are easy to do.

262 81.37

44 13.67

16 4.97

Guided-inquiry laboratories are difficult to do.

1.92 (0.83)

3

Guided-inquiry laboratory reports are easy to do.

185 57.45

76 23.60

61 18.94

Guided-inquiry laboratory reports are difficult to do.

2.47 (1.05)

4

It takes a smaller amount of time to complete the guidedinquiry laboratory reports.

178 55.28

84 26.09

60 18.63

It takes a larger amount of time to complete the guidedinquiry laboratory reports.

2.45 (1.13)

5

It takes a smaller amount of effort to complete the guidedinquiry laboratory reports.

167 51.86

90 27.95

65 20.19

It takes a larger amount of effort to complete the guidedinquiry laboratory reports.

2.55 (1.04)

6

I have to do a lot of thinking and analyzing for doing the guided-inquiry laboratory reports.

191 59.32

66 20.50

65 20.19

I do not have to do a lot of thinking and analyzing for doing the guided-inquiry laboratory reports.

2.47 (1.04)

7

Guided-inquiry laboratories are fun to do.

122 37.89

99 30.75

101 31.37

Guided-inquiry laboratories are not fun to do.

2.99 (1.18)

Note: Bold type indicates a significant difference from the expected value at p ≤ 0.05. Shaded statements are ones that significantly more students agreed with.

1428

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 86 No. 12 December 2009 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

Results After the biographical questions, Part 2 of the survey asks students to identify new scenarios regarding the type of laboratory. Table 1 shows the total number and percentage of students who identified both the guided- and open-inquiry examples correctly, only the guided-inquiry examples correctly, only the open-inquiry examples correctly, and none correctly. These data indicate that 45.80% of the students could identify both types. To consider all the students who could identify guided-inquiry scenarios, the number identifying both types of laboratories (322) must be added to the number identifying only the guided inquiry (225). This gives a total of 547 students (77.81%) who

could identify the guided-inquiry scenarios. To consider all the students who could identify open-inquiry scenarios, the number identifying both types of laboratories (322) must be added to the number identifying only the open inquiry (54). This gives a total of 376 students (53.49%) who could identify the open-inquiry scenarios. The students were able to identify guided-inquiry scenarios far better than the open-inquiry scenarios (77.81 versus 53.49%); however, 45.80% of the students could identify both guided- and open-inquiry scenarios correctly. Semantic Differential Survey Statements Tables 2, 3 and 4 report the results of the 19 semantic differential attitude statements in Part 3 of the survey. For this

Table 3. Distribution of Results of the Semantic Differential Survey Statements about Open Inquiry Left Statement


Neutral, %

Agreement with Right Statement Right Statement, %


8

I like open-inquiry laboratory.

69 21.43

51 15.84

202 62.73

I do not like open-inquiry laboratory.

3.64 (1.22)

9

Open-inquiry laboratories are easy to do.

72 22.36

69 21.43

181 56.21

Open-inquiry laboratories are difficult to do.

3.49 (1.12)

10

Open-inquiry laboratory reports are easy to do.

92 28.57

67 20.81

163 50.62

Open-inquiry laboratory reports are difficult to do.

3.35 (1.20)

11

It takes a smaller amount of time to complete the openinquiry laboratory reports.

54 16.77

70 21.74

198 61.49

It takes a larger amount of time to complete the openinquiry laboratory reports.

3.68 (1.11)

12

It takes a smaller amount of effort to complete the openinquiry laboratory reports.

39 12.11

75 23.29

208 64.60

It takes a larger amount of effort to complete the openinquiry laboratory reports.

3.78 (0.99)

13

I have to do a lot of thinking and analyzing for doing the open-inquiry laboratory reports.

201 62.42

43 13.35

78 24.22

I do not have to do a lot of thinking and analyzing for doing the open-inquiry laboratory reports.

2.45 (1.28)

14

Open-inquiry laboratories are fun to do.

55 17.08

95 29.50

172 53.42

Open-inquiry laboratories are not fun to do.

3.60 (1.19)


Table 4. Distribution of Results of the Semantic Differential Survey Statements about both Guided Inquiry and Open Inquiry Left Statement


Neutral, %

Agreement with Right Statement Right Statement, %


15

I like to come up with my own procedure for doing laboratories.

37 11.49

53 16.46

232 72.05

I like it better when I have to follow the procedures given in the laboratory manual.

4.00 (1.10)

16

Open-inquiry laboratories take shorter time to complete compared to guided-inquiry laboratories.

48 14.91

114 35.40

160 49.69

Open-inquiry laboratories take longer time to complete compared to guided-inquiry laboratories.

3.51 (1.04)

17

I score better grades on open-inquiry laboratories.

76 23.60

106 32.92

140 43.48

I score better grades on guided-inquiry laboratories.

3.28 (1.24)

18

I would chose to do an open-inquiry laboratory over a guided-inquiry laboratory.

37 11.49

38 11.80

247 76.71

I would chose to do a guided-inquiry laboratory over an open-inquiry laboratory.

4.15 (1.11)

19

I personally think that I learn more with open-inquiry laboratory.

71 22.05

103 31.99

148 45.96

I personally think that I learn more with guidedinquiry laboratory.

3.42 (1.20)



1429


part, students were given examples of labs that they had actually performed to prevent confusion about the type of lab referred to in the attitude part. Statements 1–7 in Table 2 test attitudes toward only guided-inquiry labs; Statements 8–14 (Table 3) test attitudes toward only open-inquiry labs. Finally, Statements 15–19 (Table 4) test attitudes toward both guided- and openinquiry labs. No questions were asked regarding verification labs, as these were not a standard part of the curriculum. The results summarized in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are only for the 322 students who were able to correctly identify both types of inquiry in the previous section of the survey. The means for the 19 semantic differential questions are shown along with the standard deviations. The results are collapsed and reported as frequencies in terms of whether the participant agreed with the statement on the left, was neutral, or agreed with the statement on the right. A χ2 analysis on these three categories was done to see whether the observed value differed significantly from the expected value. If students randomly selected a response, it would be expected that equal numbers would agree with the left statement, agree with the right statement, and remain neutral for each question in the Inquiry Laboratory Attitude Survey. The expected value for χ2 analysis was 107.3, which is one third of the total population of 322 students. No differences were found with respect to the two different semesters or with respect to gender, except for Statements 1, 4, 6, and 11, which will be discussed later. This was surprising, because the first-semester students had experienced eight guidedand two open-inquiry labs, and the second-semester students had experienced twice that number (sixteen guided- and four open-inquiry labs). However, opinions can be formed from a single semester of experience, and these data show no difference in attitude from repeated exposure in the context of this study. From this point on, all 322 students who could identify both types of laboratories were considered as one group. Results summarized in Table 2 for Questions 1–7 show that all responses except those for Statement 7 differed significantly from the expected values at the p ≤ 0.05 level. Results indicate that more students agreed that they like guided-inquiry laboratories (82.1%) and that guided-inquiry laboratories and reports are easy to do (81.37 and 57.45%, respectively). Students also agreed that a smaller amount of time and effort was required to complete the guided-inquiry laboratory reports (55.28 and 51.86%, respectively). Although most students agreed that they had to do a lot of thinking and analyzing to complete the guided-inquiry laboratory reports (59.32%), they were almost evenly split on the idea that guided-inquiry labs are fun to do. Table 2 includes three statements for which gender differences were found. Statement 1 probes whether students like guided-inquiry laboratories. More female students than male students stated that they liked guided-inquiry laboratory. For Statement 4, on the amount of time needed to complete guidedinquiry lab reports, males were more likely to agree that it took less time to complete guided-inquiry laboratory reports than female students were. Statement 6 regards the amount of time students spend thinking and analyzing for guided-inquiry lab reports. Female students were more likely than the males were to respond that they had to do more thinking and analyzing. Overall, attitudes were positive toward guided-inquiry labs. The results summarized in Table 3 (Statements 8–14) also indicate a number of significant differences. Results indicate that more students agreed that they did not like open-inquiry labora1430

tory (62.73%) and that open-inquiry laboratories and reports are difficult to do (56.21 and 50.62%). They also agreed that it takes a large amount of time and effort to complete the openinquiry laboratory reports (61.49 and 64.60%, respectively). Most students agreed that they had to do a lot of thinking and analyzing to complete the lab reports (62.42%), and that openinquiry labs are not fun to do (53.42%). Despite any difficulties interpreting the word “fun”, a significant majority agreed with the statement “open-inquiry laboratories are not fun to do”, and students’ responses were split on the same statement for guided inquiry. Statement 11, the remaining statement for which responses differed by gender, concerns the amount of time needed to complete open-inquiry laboratory reports. Male students were more likely than females were to respond that it takes longer to complete open-inquiry laboratory reports. Overall, attitudes were not positive toward open-inquiry laboratories. Responses to all the statements in Table 4 (Statements 15–19) differed significantly from expected values. Results show that students liked it better when they had to follow procedures already given in the lab manual (72.05%). Most students agreed that open-inquiry laboratories took a longer time to complete than guided-inquiry laboratories (49.69%). They thought that they scored better on the guided-inquiry laboratories than they did on open-inquiry laboratories (43.48%). More than threequarters of the students who participated in the survey agreed that they would choose to do a guided-inquiry lab over an openinquiry lab (76.71%). Students also agreed that they learn more with guided-inquiry laboratories (45.96%). It is interesting to note that in Statements 16, 17, and 19, a large number of students were neutral toward the statements on the left and right, but the students who agreed with the statement on the right were significantly larger in number than the students who agreed with the statement on the left. In Statement 19, students indicated that they think they learn more with guided-inquiry laboratories. Overall, students seemed to have a preference for guided-inquiry labs and also responded more positively to them when compared to open-inquiry labs. Using the entire sample of 703 students who completed the survey when analyzing the 19 semantic differential attitude statements yields results similar to those reported in Tables 2, 3, and 4. The χ2 results for the attitude survey were exactly the same for the entire sample of 703 as compared to the subsample of 322 students. Despite minor percentage changes, the responses showing significant differences were identical for both samples. The only meaningful point of divergence between these two samples is gender differences on the attitude survey. The sample group of 703 students had responses that differed by gender only for Statement 7, which dealt with guided-inquiry labs being fun. The majority of female students agreed that “guided-inquiry laboratories are fun to do”, but the males were equally divided, as compared to the four items (1, 4, 6, and 11) previously discussed. The similarity between the two samples was expected because students were given examples of open- or guided-inquiry laboratories that they had completed prior to answering the attitude survey. Discussion Research Question 1 Research Question 1 dealt with students’ ability to differentiate between guided- and open-inquiry laboratories. The



results of the survey indicate that a little less than half of the students could identify both the guided- and open-inquiry lab (45.80%, Table 1). While students could more often identify the guided-inquiry lab, they definitely had difficulty identifying open-inquiry labs (77.81 to 53.49%). The reason behind this finding could be due to the fact that among the 8–10 laboratories conducted each semester, most of them were guided-inquiry laboratories, with only two open-inquiry laboratories. The question remains about whether the ability to identify new scenarios as guided inquiry or open inquiry correlates with learning or any other desirable factor.

Research Question 3

Research Question 2 Research Question 2 asked about students’ attitudes toward guided-inquiry laboratories and open-inquiry laboratories. The results indicate that students have a more positive attitude toward guided-inquiry laboratories compared to the open-inquiry laboratories. According to their responses, students prefer to have the procedures included in the laboratory manual. Although students felt that they have to do a lot of thinking and analyzing for guided-inquiry laboratory reports, nevertheless they also like guided-inquiry laboratories because they think that lab reports are easy, take less time and effort, and the labs are fun to do. Thus, if given a choice, almost three-quarters of the students agreed that they would prefer doing a guided-inquiry lab over an open-inquiry laboratory. One possible reason that students chose guided inquiry over open inquiry may be explained by a specific tendency observed in students—when students are presented with alternatives having the same survival value (equal grades), they will usually choose the alternative that requires the least amount of effort (33, 34). When performing an open-inquiry lab students have to independently develop a procedure that is possible to do in a specified amount of time and will also give the required results. Also, after the lab is over students are required to write a formal lab report, unlike the guided-inquiry laboratory in which the procedures are already written and a formal write up is not required. Still, in the case of guided-inquiry laboratories, students are required to answer the multi-page analysis section of the laboratory report, which guides them to the conclusions in a systematic manner. It should also be noted that while the majority of students demonstrated a definite preference for guided-inquiry labs, a large number of students either preferred open-inquiry labs or felt the same about both types of labs. Usually, an open-inquiry laboratory is done after a number of guided-inquiry laboratories are done on related concepts, so the open-inquiry labs are fewer in number in a semester, as was the case in this study. Although more exposure does not necessarily equate to better attitudes, would the same results occur if more open-inquiry laboratories were performed? We found no difference in the attitudes of the second-semester students who had more exposure to open-inquiry laboratories compared to the attitudes of the first-semester students; most students preferred guided inquiry, regardless of their semester of enrollment. A final explanation of students’ preference for guided inquiry could stem from the cognitively difficult mental processes involved in applying a relationship or concept in a new setting as required for open-inquiry labs (6). In fact, we look for the ability to transfer knowledge to a new setting as evidence of learning. The cognitive requirement of the open inquiry may be the reason that it is not favored among the majority of the students.

Conclusions

Research Question 3 concerned students’ perceived learning with guided- versus open-inquiry labs. According to the results obtained, students do think that they learn more with guidedinquiry laboratories (45.96%) compared to those who thought they learned more with open-inquiry laboratories (22.05%). It is also important to note that by doing both types of laboratories throughout the semester both of these groups are served. No quantitative study was done to check what actual learning took place; these findings are for perceived learning only.

This study resulted in the following findings.

• Students have a more positive attitude toward guidedinquiry laboratories than open-inquiry laboratories.

• Students believe that they learn more with guided-inquiry laboratories than open-inquiry laboratories.

• About 77.8% of the students could correctly identify guided-inquiry laboratories, while about 53.5% of the students could correctly identify open-inquiry laboratories. Fewer than half of the students could identify both guided- and open-inquiry laboratories.

Implications for Teaching and Research The study showed that students have a more positive attitude toward guided-inquiry laboratories and that they think they learn more with guided- than with open-inquiry laboratories. As far as students’ attitudes are concerned, it is not a good practice to change teaching styles or techniques to accord with students’ likes and dislikes. Students generally dislike doing homework though it is widely accepted that doing homework improves students’ understanding of the subject. Teachers should be aware of how students feel about doing open inquiry and should encourage them when students get frustrated with the process. However, such awareness does not mean giving up on doing open-inquiry labs because students do not like them as much as a guided-inquiry labs. Additionally, teachers should emphasize the learning that occurred in doing open-inquiry labs because the students in this study seem to believe that they learn less with this type of lab. Asking students to specifically outline what they have learned in an open-inquiry laboratory may be a way to do this. Previous research shows a link between attitudes and achievement, although unanswered questions remain about which is dependent on the other (28). Future research should be considered in these areas of investigation:

• How perceived learning compares to actual learning when using the types of inquiry laboratories (guided inquiry or open inquiry)

• Whether the ability to differentiate between laboratory types has any correlation with actual student learning

• Whether there is a link between “liking” a type of laboratory and being able to identify the type of laboratory

• Whether students can better identify open-inquiry laboratories or have better attitudes toward them when more are done in the semester


1431


Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 2. Siebert, E. D. Content Standards. In College Pathways to the Science Education Standards; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2001; pp 95–111. 3. National Research Council. Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1997. 4. Browne, L. M.; Blackburn, E. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 74, 591–594. 5. Martin-Hansen, L. Sci. Teach. 2002, 69 (2), 34–37. 6. Abraham, M.R. Inquiry and the Learning Cycle Approach. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004; pp 41–52. 7. Lawson, A. E. Am. Bio. Teach. 2000, 62 (9), 641. 8. Chin, C. Sci. Teach. 2003, 70 (2), 34–40. 9. Deters, K. M. Sci. Teach. 2004, 71 (10), 42–45. 10. Grant, A. S.; Latimer, D. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 670. 11. Vaksman, M. A.; Lane, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1507. 12. Durick, M. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 574. 13. Kimbrough, D. R.; Magoun, M. A.; Langfur, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 210. 14. Green, W. J.; Elliot, C.; Cummins, R. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 239. 15. Allen, J. B.; Baker, L. N.; Ramsden, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63 (6), 533–534. 16. Volkmam, M. J.; Abell, S. K. Sci. Teach. 2003, 70 (6), 38. 17. Bednarski, M. Sci. Teach. 2003, 70 (4), 34–37. 18. Tretter, T. R.; Jones, M. G. Sch. Sci. Math. 2003, 103 (7), 345– 350. 19. Kurz, J. S. Sci. Teach. 2001, 68 (1), 62. 20. Piaget, J. The Development of Thought: Equilibrium of Cognitive Structures; Viking: New York, 1977. 21. von Glasersfeld, E. Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning; Falmer: Washington, DC, 1995. 22. Osborne, R. J.;Wittrock, M. C. Sci. Educ. 1983, 67, 489–508. 23. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–878.

1432

24. Peck, M. L.; Williamson, V. M. Experiences in Chemistry, I & II; Hayden-McNeil Publishing Inc: Plymouth, MI, 2005. (Now available as: Williamson, V. M.; Peck, M. L. Experiments in General Chemistry: Inquiry and Skill Building; Brooks-Cole Publishing: Belmont, CA, 2009.) 25. Deters, K. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1178–1180. 26. Freedman, M. P. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 343–357. 27. House, J. D. Res. Higher Ed. 1995, 36, 473–490. 28. Osborne, R. J.; Simon, S.; Collins, S. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1049–1079. 29. Beaton, A.; Maring, M. O.; Mullis, I.; Gonzalez, E. J.; Sith, T. A.; Kelley, D. L. Science Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study; Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, 1996. 30. Sommer, R. Am. J. Psych. 1965, 78, 317–318. 31. Barclay, A.; Thumin, F. J. J. Clin. Psych. 1963, 19, 376–378. 32. Heise, D. R. The Semantic Differential and Attitude Research. In Attitude Measurement, Summers, G. F., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, 1970; pp 235–253. 33. Abraham, M. R.; Renner, J. W. Sequencing Language and Activities in Teaching High School Chemistry. A Report to the National Science Foundation; University of Oklahoma Science Education Center: Norman, OK, 1983; ED 241 267. 34. Herron, J. D. Eternal Verities. In The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching, Eubanks, I. D., Ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996; pp 17–25. 35. Lepper, M. R. Cogn. & Inst. 1988, 5 (4), 289–309.

Supporting JCE Online Material

http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Dec/abs1427.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited JCE articles Supplement Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Inquiry Laboratory Attitude Survey: Part 1, Biographical information; Part 2, Identification of novel scenarios; Part 3, Attitudes toward guided- and open-inquiry laboratories that students had performed


Surveying Students' Attitudes and Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry

Recommend Documents