ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Teacher Beliefs about Implementing Guided-Inquiry Laboratory Experiments for Secondary School Chemistry Derek Cheung* Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
bS Supporting Information ABSTRACT: One of the characteristics of teaching chemistry through inquiry is that teachers need to encourage students to design their experimental procedures. Although the benefits of inquiry teaching are well documented in the literature, few teachers implement it in schools. The purpose of this study was to develop a guided-inquiry scale (GIS) to measure teachers’ beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry labs in secondary schools. Construction of this guided-inquiry scale was based on a model with three dimensions: the value of guided-inquiry labs, limitations of cookbook-style labs, and implementation issues with guided-inquiry labs. Data were collected from 200 Hong Kong chemistry teachers. They responded to the GIS items using a seven-point Likert scale. The GIS data were of adequate reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a good fit exists between the hypothesized model and data. Both users and nonusers of guidedinquiry labs valued this kind of lab work and recognized the limitations of cookbook-style labs; however, nonusers tended to believe that students dislike guided inquiry and it is not feasible for students to design experiments. The length of chemistry teaching experience and the level of student ability did not influence teachers’ beliefs about implementing guidedinquiry labs. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Chemical Education Research, Laboratory Instruction, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Student-Centered Learning FEATURE: Chemical Education Research
T
eaching chemistry through inquiry requires teachers to create situations in which students are stimulated to formulate questions, propose hypotheses, design lab experiments, collect and analyze data, draw conclusions based upon evidence, and present the findings.1 6 Compared to cookbook-style lab experiments, the benefits of inquiry-based lab experiments are well documented in the literature.7 14 Increasingly, inquirybased lab experiments are used in the teaching of college and university chemistry,15 18 yet few secondary school teachers use them as a teaching aid. In England, for example, Millar and Abrahams19 observed the lab experiments implemented in 25 science lessons in eight secondary schools. They found that none of the lab experiments were used to develop students’ understanding of the scientific approach to inquiry (e.g., to design an investigation, to evaluate the data, to process the data to draw conclusions). A Programme for International Student Assessment study revealed that only 39% of students in Hong Kong were allowed to design their own lab experiments. Deters9 surveyed 571 high school chemistry teachers in the United States and found that 45.5% of the teachers did not provide students an opportunity to write experimental procedures. Thus, despite the evidence that inquiry-based lab activities can enhance students’ content knowledge, scientific process skills, and motivation in science lessons, there is reluctance on the part of teachers to implement this type of lab work. One barrier to be overcome is that some teachers do not hold positive beliefs about implementing inquiry-based lab experiments in school. What are those beliefs? How can we measure teacher beliefs about inquiry-based lab work? An extensive review of the literature Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
indicated that there are no instruments that can provide valid and reliable data on teacher beliefs about implementing inquirybased lab work. The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to measure Hong Kong chemistry teachers’ beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry lab experiments in secondary schools.
’ LITERATURE REVIEW Although educators have not reached a consensus on the definition of scientific inquiry, at least four levels of student ownership, control, or responsibility can be distinguished when conducting lab experiments: confirmation, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry.20,21 A confirmation lab requires students to verify concepts, principles, or laws by following a given experimental procedure (e.g., to verify Hess’s law). For a structured inquiry lab, students are required to solve a problem (e.g., to determine the “best buy” from among several brands of commercial vinegar). Although students do not know the answer, they are allowed to follow a given procedure to find it. A guided-inquiry lab may be defined as a lab in which the teacher provides a question and students are asked to design the experimental procedure to answer it. Alternatively, a guidedinquiry lab may require students to follow a given experimental procedure to get a first understanding of new chemistry concepts before they are taught by the teacher. For example, Shaw et al.18 guided undergraduate students to learn the factors affecting Published: September 06, 2011 1462
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education trans-substitution versus cis-substitution in square-planar transition-metal complexes. They asked students to follow two different sets of experimental procedures without being told whether they are synthesizing the cis or the trans isomer. Hong Kong chemistry teachers are familiar with the first definition of guidedinquiry labs because most instructional materials22,23 with a focus on inquiry-based chemistry experiments have emphasized the design of experimental procedures by students. Therefore, I used this definition when conducting the present research study in Hong Kong. In an open-inquiry lab, students are also required to design their own experimental procedures, but the lab activities are directed by student questions or an open question set by the teacher. It is not necessary that all chemistry lab experiments are open inquiries because different kinds of lab experiments serve different purposes. The key is to organize a variety of lab activities for students. In Hong Kong, secondary schooling consists of seven years (referred to as Secondary 1 7). Chemistry is offered as a separate subject to Secondary 4 7 students (aged about 16 19 years), but many schools also offer chemistry as a Secondary 3 subject even though the Hong Kong government does not provide a curriculum guide. According to my previous research,20,24 the major barriers to implementing inquiry-based lab experiments in secondary schools are clustered in 11 areas: (i) lack of time; (ii) teacher beliefs; (iii) lack of effective inquiry materials; (iv) pedagogical problems; (v) management problems; (vi) large classes; (vii) safety issues; (viii) fear of abetting student misconceptions; (ix) student complaints; (x) assessment issues; and (xi) material demands. Inquiry-based lab experiments usually take longer to complete than cookbook-style experiments because students need extra time to plan their experimental procedures, modify procedures based on trials, and decide how data are analyzed and presented. One main hurdle Hong Kong teachers must overcome in implementing inquiry-based labs is large class size. There are usually 40 students in a class. To implement inquiry-based lab teaching in large classes, I have recommended that Hong Kong teachers include several guided- rather than open-inquiry lab experiments in each academic year. Research has confirmed that in middle and high schools, guided-inquiry lab instruction is more effective than verification lab instruction.21 Teacher beliefs play significant roles in shaping classroom practices.25 Beliefs may be defined as psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true.26 They can represent individual ideologies and are held with varying degrees of conviction from strong to weak.27 For lasting changes in teachers’ classroom practices to occur, professional development activities must address their existing beliefs.25,28,29 Of course, the impact of teacher beliefs on instructional practice is inevitably mediated by numerous contextual factors such as school culture and resources. However, if a chemistry teacher does not believe that guided-inquiry lab work is valuable, he or she will not implement it voluntarily even though contextual factors are favorable. All chemistry teachers hold beliefs about how lab experiments should be used as a teaching aid in school. Some teachers are reluctant, even afraid, to allow their students to conduct guidedinquiry lab work, believing that scientific inquiries are suitable for high-ability students only. For example, Roehrig and Luft30 identified the constraints experienced by 14 beginning secondary science teachers in implementing inquiry lessons. One of the major constraints was low student ability. If teachers perceived their students as being “low ability”, they often did not think that
ARTICLE
inquiry teaching is effective. Also, 8 of the 14 teachers did not allow their students to devise procedures because they believed that science is an objective body of knowledge that can be transmitted to students as facts. Additionally, Roehrig and Luft31 conducted a qualitative study to investigate the beliefs and classroom practices of 10 beginning secondary chemistry teachers over a year. Using interviews and classroom observations, they found that 5 of the 10 teachers had implemented at least one inquiry lab activity during the year. Those five teachers all had one common characteristic when compared with the nonusers of inquiry teaching; that is, they held some constructivist beliefs about teaching. Thus, mastery of knowledge of strategies for inquiry teaching is not enough; professional development activities must also address teacher beliefs. But the interviews conducted by Roehrig and Luft did not specifically focus on chemistry teachers’ beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry labs in school. An instrument is needed that can efficiently provide valid and reliable data on teacher beliefs.
’ RESEARCH QUESTIONS The present study was guided by the following four research questions: 1. How can teacher beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry experiments be measured validly and reliably? 2. Do users and nonusers hold different beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry experiments in school? If so, how do their beliefs differ? 3. Does a teacher’s length of teaching experience in school influence his or her beliefs about implementing guidedinquiry experiments? 4. Does student ability influence teacher beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry experiments in school? ’ METHODOLOGY Development of the Instrument
On the basis of my previous research20,24 and an extensive review of the literature, I included three dimensions in my conceptual framework to develop a guided-inquiry scale (GIS). The first dimension concerns the value of guided-inquiry lab work. Items were constructed to assess whether teachers believe that guided-inquiry lab work is useful and important to facilitate students to learn scientific process skills. The second dimension focuses on the limitations of cookbook-style lab work. Items were constructed to assess whether teachers believe that cookbook-style labs are less effective in developing students’ content knowledge and scientific process skills when compared to guided-inquiry labs. The third dimension assesses teachers’ beliefs about some implementation issues with guided-inquiry labs. The items aimed to assess whether teachers believe that students generally like doing guidedinquiry labs and it is feasible to include this kind of labs in the chemistry curriculum. I aimed to develop a short scale that is timesaving for teachers to respond to and easy for use by researchers worldwide. A pool of 30 items was initially developed. Then, with the aid of reliability analysis, a smaller number of items were selected to form three subscales. The details of item selection are reported in the Data Analysis section. It is important to note that a combination of positively and negatively worded items has often been used by researchers to reduce the effects of acquiescence 1463
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Table 1. The 12 Selected GIS Items and Reliability Estimates Based on the Second Subsample (N = 150) Items
Subscales and Statements
Item Total Correlations
Value of Guided-Inquiry Laboratories (estimated α = 0.79) Q1
Designing experiments should be a formal part of the chemistry curriculum.
0.55
Q11
It is worthwhile asking students to decide how to represent and analyze data as a learning activity even
0.55
Q13
Guided-inquiry experiments are worthwhile learning activities even though more time is spent.
0.68
Q19
It is worthwhile asking students to design their own experiments as a learning activity even though the
0.64
though the findings may be imperfect.
design may be imperfect. Limitations of Cookbook-Style Laboratories (estimated α = 0.74) Q3
Guided-inquiry lab work can provide more opportunities for students to apply chemical knowledge than cookbook-style lab work.
0.49
Q14
Guided-inquiry lab work is more effective than cookbook-style lab work to reveal whether students have
0.50
misconceptions about chemistry. Q18
Guided-inquiry lab work is better than cookbook-style lab work to get students to develop a wider
0.48
range of practical skills. Q27
Students engaged in guided inquiry can learn more from their mistakes than they do from doing
0.69
cookbook-style lab exercises. Implementation Issues with Guided-Inquiry Laboratories (estimated α = 0.74) Q2 Q17
Most students like doing lab work in which they have a chance to plan the procedure. Most students like guided-inquiry experiments more than cookbook-style lab work.
0.45 0.50
Q23
I believe that it is feasible for students to design their experimental procedures in the normal chemistry lessons.
0.59
Q30
In each academic year, several guided-lab experiments should be done by students.
0.60
and other response biases. However, research has indicated that negative items, written as reversals of positive items, may load on a separate factor when conducting factor analysis, forming a measurement artifact.32 34 Therefore, negatively worded items were not included in the GIS. All items were written in Chinese and randomly arranged in the GIS. Sample and Data Collection
There are about 1000 secondary school chemistry teachers in Hong Kong. I invited a convenience sample (i.e., the selection was not done at random) of 228 chemistry teachers to respond to the 30-item GIS when they attended a seminar at my university in June 2009. The questionnaire survey was anonymous and lasted about 10 min. On the first page of the questionnaire, “guidedinquiry lab” was defined as a lab in which the teacher provides a question and students are asked to design the experimental procedure to answer it. Teachers were asked how much they agreed with the 30 GIS items regarding their beliefs. They responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). In addition, teachers were invited to put down their gender, their length of experience teaching secondary school chemistry, and the academic ability of their chemistry students. They were asked to indicate whether they had implemented at least one guidedinquiry lab over the past nine months. Those teachers who had used guided-inquiry in at least one chemistry class were invited to list an example of lab conducted by their students. A total of 200 teachers returned their completed 30-item GIS. Data Analysis
Teacher responses to the 30 GIS items were entered into a statistical analysis program using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) so that higher scores represented more
positive beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry labs. The data analysis consisted of two phases. The first phase started with a randomly selected subsample of 50 teachers from the 200 teachers to conduct item analysis. The reliabilities of teacher responses to the individual 30 GIS items and to the three subscales were examined on the basis of item total correlations and values for Cronbach’s α, respectively. For each of the three subscales, only those four items with the largest item total correlations were retained. Four items were selected because a basic principle in confirmatory factor analysis is that at least three indicators are needed to define a factor adequately. The 12 selected GIS items have been translated into English (see Table 1, the original Chinese version is available in the Supporting Information). They have been back-translated into Chinese by a research assistant to ensure linguistic equivalence. The second phase of data analysis focused on the second subsample of 150 teachers and the 12 selected items from the GIS. As in the first phase, the reliability of teacher data collected by the 12 items was examined on the basis of item total correlation and values for Cronbach’s α. To test the construct validity of data, the 12 items were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Each item was allowed to load on only one factor (i.e., the dimension that the item had been constructed to measure), and the errors of measurement associated with all items were posited to be uncorrelated. The confirmatory factor analysis was performed by the LISREL program using maximum likelihood estimates derived from a covariance matrix based on listwise deletion for missing data.35 The ability of the hypothesized model to fit teacher data was judged by the values of overall model fit indices. Out of the 150 teachers in the second subsample, 111 teachers were users of guided-inquiry and 39 were nonusers. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to 1464
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Q2
0.57
Q17
0.56
Q23
0.75
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Table 2. The factor loadings were reasonable and statistically significant (t values varied between 5.78 and 7.79). Each of the 12 items was retained in exactly the same subscale to which it had been assigned when the GIS was developed. Fit indices generated by the LISREL program showed that the model fitted the data satisfactorily (e.g., goodness of fit index = 0.91, non-normed fit index = 0.91, comparative fit index = 0.93, incremental fit index = 0.93) For example, the comparative fit index has a maximum of 1.0 that implies perfect fit, and a value greater than 0.90 indicates an acceptable model fit.35 Therefore, the 12 selected GIS items managed to produce not only reliable data, but also valid information about the multidimensionality of data. The correlations among the three factors are also shown in Table 2. All of the three correlations were positive and considerable. The correlation between the value factor and the implementation issues factor was the highest, indicating that those teachers who valued guided-inquiry labs tended to believe that it is feasible to include guided-inquiry labs in the chemistry curriculum, and vice versa.
Q30
0.70
Beliefs of Users and Nonusers
Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized Factor Loadingsa
Factors Items
1
2
3
F1 Value Q1
0.67
Q11
0.60
Q13
0.80
Q19
0.77
F2 Limitations Q3
0.63
Q14 Q18
0.63 0.60
Q27
0.80
F3 Implementation
Factor Correlations F1
F2
F1
1.00
F2
0.67
1.00
F3
0.71
0.59
F3
According to teacher self-reports, there were 111 users of guided-inquiry lab work and 39 nonusers in the second subsample. Examples of guided-inquiry labs provided by the users are shown in Box 1. Some lab experiments are closely related to students’ everyday lives and thus have the potential to allow students to recognize the relevance of what they are learning.
1.00
a
All factor loadings not shown in the table were set to zero. Effective N = 146.
determine whether the scores of users and nonusers were significantly different from each other. MANOVA was appropriate because the three subscales were positively correlated. If the MANOVA test was statistically significant, univariate analysis of variance on each subscale scores was conducted as a followup test. The length of chemistry teaching experience of the 150 teachers had a range of 1 30 years. I divided these data into three groups: 1 6 years (N = 45), 7 16 years (N = 56), and more than 16 years (N = 49). MANOVA was employed to evaluate whether the means on the three subscales varied across the three groups. The numbers of teachers who reported that they had low, medium, and high ability students were 40, 64, and 46, respectively. MANOVA was also applied to determine whether the mean scores for the three ability groups were significantly different from each other.
’ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Reliability and Validity
On the basis of the 12 selected items from the GIS, the Cronbach’s α values of the three subscales varied between 0.74 and 0.79 and the item total correlations were moderately positive and ranged from 0.45 to 0.69 (see Table 1). Hence, the teacher data were of adequate reliability. The item total correlation relates each item score to the total score for a subscale, excluding that particular item from the total score.36 For example, the item total correlation of Q1 is 0.55, indicating that the correlation between the score of Q1 and the total score computed from Q11, Q13 and Q19 is 0.55.
The subscale means of users and nonusers are displayed in Table 3. On a 1 7 rating scale, the mean scores averaged between 4.24 and 5.46, indicating that the teachers surveyed generally held favorable beliefs about implementing guidedinquiry labs in school. The MANOVA on the three subscale scores was statistically significant, with these values pertaining: Wilks’ λ = 0.937, F(3, 146) = 3.296, p < 0.05. To control for type I error across the three ANOVAs, the Bonferroni method was used to adjust 1465
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Table 3. Subscale Means of Users and Nonusers Nonuser Mean (SD)
User Mean (SD)
F
Sig.a
Partial η2 Values
Value
5.31 (0.84)
5.46 (0.64)
1.440
0.232
0.010
Limitations
4.91 (0.97)
5.27 (0.71)
5.749
0.018
0.037
Implementation
4.24 (0.95)
4.66 (0.80)
7.450
0.007a
0.048
Subscale
a Significant at the p = 0.017 level. Wilks’ λ = 0.937, F(3, 146) = 3.296, p < 0.05. The multivariate partial η2 = 0.063. Univariate F-tests with (1, 148) degrees of freedom.
Table 4. Relationships between Subscale Means and Teaching Experience Years of Teaching Experience 1 6 Subscale
a
Mean (SD)
7 16 Mean (SD)
>16 Mean (SD)
F
Sig.a
Partial η2 Values
Value Limitations
5.26 (0.83) 5.11 (0.83)
5.46 (0.62) 5.27 (0.71)
5.53 (0.64) 5.13 (0.87)
1.987 0.601
0.141 0.550
0.026 0.008
Implementation
4.50 (0.98)
4.57 (0.68)
4.58 (0.94)
0.132
0.876
0.002
Wilks’ λ = 0.959, F(6, 290) = 1.027, p > 0.05. The multivariate partial η2 = 0.021. Univariate F-tests with (2, 147) degrees of freedom.
Table 5. Relationships between Subscale Means and Student Ability Student Ability Characterized as Low Subscale
a
Mean (SD)
Medium Mean (SD)
High Mean (SD)
F
Sig.a
Partial η2 Values
Value
5.34 (0.54)
5.36 (0.83)
5.58 (0.61)
1.600
0.205
0.021
Limitations
5.21 (0.76)
5.07 (0.77)
5.28 (0.87)
0.964
0.384
0.013
Implementation
4.29 (0.73)
4.60 (0.87)
4.72 (0.92)
2.833
0.062
0.037
Wilks’ λ = 0.932, F(6, 290) = 1.741, p > 0.05. The multivariate partial η2 = 0.035. Univariate F-tests with (2, 147) degrees of freedom.
the α level so that each ANOVA was tested at the 0.05 level divided by 3, or the 0.017 level. Although the mean scores of users were larger than those of nonusers, only the difference between the means of users and nonusers on the implementation issues subscale was statistically significant. Thus, the difference in the beliefs of users and nonusers was attributable to scores on the third subscale. Table 3 also shows the values of partial η2, which is an effectsize index to assess the strength of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Although all the three effect sizes were small, the findings support the hypothesis that the implementation of guided-inquiry labs in school is related to teacher beliefs. Both users and nonusers believed that guidedinquiry lab work is worthwhile and can overcome some limitations of cookbook-style lab work. However, users were more likely to agree with the ideas mentioned in the questions from the implementation issues subscale (questions 2, 17, 23, and 30 in Table 1). These findings are consistent with those obtained in my previous research,20,24 as well as the work of Roehrig and Luft,31 who reported that teacher beliefs about teaching affect the implementation of inquiry teaching in chemistry classrooms. Effects of Teaching Experience and Student Ability
In the second subsample, the numbers of teachers with teaching experience of 1 6 years, 7 16 years, and more than 16 years were 45, 56, and 49, respectively. The results of the MANOVA test indicated that there was no statistically significant
effect of teaching experience on teacher beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry labs in school (see Table 4). Compared with beginning teachers, experienced teachers did not tend to hold more favorable beliefs about the use of guided-inquiry labs. This finding is puzzling. Experienced teachers would be expected to master inquiry-teaching methods better than novice teachers because the Hong Kong government has provided many opportunities for teachers to learn inquirybased instructional methods over the past 10 years. Uncovering the reasons why experienced teachers and novices had no significant difference is beyond the scope of the present study, yet one plausible explanation is that many experienced chemistry teachers in Hong Kong are required to teach classes in upper grades and thus are under constant pressure to prepare students for public examinations. Although students’ lab skills are assessed in public examinations through a school-based assessment scheme, it is not mandatory for teachers to use guided- or open-inquiry lab experiments. Also, the ability level of students perceived by the teacher did not significantly influence beliefs, even though the mean scores of those teachers who considered their students “high ability” appeared to be the highest (see Table 5). This finding is not consistent with the observations made by some researchers in the United States.30,37 Perhaps in Hong Kong, other contextual factors, such as large class size and the pressure of high-stakes public examinations, may be more determinative than student ability. 1466
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education
’ CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The 12 selected GIS items provided valid and reliable data on chemistry teachers’ beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry lab experiments in school. The scores of users on the three subscales were higher than those of nonusers, although a statistically significant difference was associated with the third subscale only. Both users and nonusers valued guided-inquiry labs and recognized the limitations of cookbook-style labs, but nonusers tended to believe that students dislike guidedinquiry experiments and feasibility is low for students to design experiments in the normal chemistry lessons. Additionally, the length of chemistry teaching experience in school and the ability level of students did not influence teachers’ beliefs about the implementation of guided-inquiry labs in school. Implementing guided-inquiry labs poses many challenges for chemistry teachers. There are many possible factors affecting nonusers’ implementation beliefs. Some nonusers may believe that guided-inquiry labs are not feasible in their chemistry classes owing to constraints such as large class size, lack of time, and the need to prepare students for public examinations. Safety is also an important factor in any chemistry lab activity. Implementing guided-inquiry lab experiments in a large class can seem intimidating and become a source of chemical hazards. Given the shortage of instructional time, it can be difficult to fit several guided-inquiry labs into the teaching schemes. One effective strategy is to try to use short inquiry lab activities that require only a few teaching periods for completion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to develop short inquiry labs that give students authentic problems related to their daily lives. Furthermore, nonusers of guided-inquiry may have had lower self-efficacy than users, believing that they were not capable of putting inquiry teaching into practice. In the United States, some high school chemistry teachers also reported needing help in using inquirybased teaching methods.38 In addition to teachers, students play an important role in the implementation process of inquiry teaching and learning. Most students, however, have been taught by traditional lab teaching methods. Chemistry lab manuals often provide detailed procedures on how to perform experiments, collect data, and analyze data. There are always students who feel uncomfortable when they are asked to plan their experiments. Consequently, the nonusers may believe that their students dislike doing guidedinquiry lab experiments because they are not experiments in which students can simply follow recipes to complete the lab work. The findings of this study have implications for the support provided to chemistry teachers. To encourage chemistry teachers to use guided-inquiry lab work as a teaching aid, professional development activities should emphasize the implementation issues with inquiry labs rather than the value of inquiry teaching or the limitations of cookbook labs. Chemical educators worldwide need to convince more teachers that it is still feasible to use guided-inquiry labs in the typical chemistry curriculum even though they need to face challenges such as large class size and lack of instructional time. According to Bandura,39 changing human beliefs can take place in one of four ways: (i) experiencing success; (ii) observing success; (iii) emotional arousal; or through (iv) verbal persuasion. In 2005, I introduced guidedinquiry chemistry experiments in four, 3-h workshops organized by the Hong Kong government, using a toothpaste inquiry22 as
ARTICLE
one of my examples. A total of 171 chemistry teachers participated in the workshops and they were provided with opportunities to design their experimental procedures. Participating teachers were able to learn from the experiences of other teachers. More importantly, they experienced the success of implementation of a guided-inquiry lab experiment. This kind of hands-on and minds-on professional development activity has the potential to change teacher beliefs about implementing guided inquiry in school. In the United States, research by Sanger40 indicated that preservice teachers’ beliefs about how science is taught and learned differed depending on whether they had experienced inquiry-based or traditional lecture-based instructional methods.
’ LIMITATIONS As with any research, certain limitations were present in this study. First, the percentage of users of guided inquiry in the second subsample was quite high (74%). The chemistry teachers were not selected at random. They attended the seminar voluntarily and were more likely to believe in the importance of inquiry. In the seminar, I demonstrated how to adapt Wright’s41 test for iodide in table salt to form a microscale guided-inquiry lab for Secondary 6 students. Perhaps the seminar was able to attract “believers” in inquiry, regardless of whether they were users or nonusers. The validity of data may have been affected by this self-selection bias, resulting in nonsignificant differences in teacher beliefs on the value subscale and the limitations of cookbook-style lab subscale. My investigation of the effects of teaching experience and student ability on teacher beliefs may also have been affected by the self-selection bias. Therefore, the findings from this study should be corroborated by using a representative sample of teachers. Second, teacher interpretation of items was not investigated. For example, Q23 concerns teachers’ feasibility beliefs. But I did not survey the specific reasons underlying teachers’ beliefs on whether it is feasible for students to design experiments. Followup interviews with teachers are needed to tease out their concerns about feasibility issues. Appropriate professional development activities can then be provided for them. Third, the results reported here are based on the Chinese version of GIS; therefore, further research is needed to examine the reliability and validity of data collected by the English version before it can be used in English-speaking countries. Fourth, only the 30-item form was actually used to collect data. It is not known whether a version formed by the 12 selected items can generate the same reliability and validity estimates shown in Table 1. Future research should address this issue. Finally, those teachers who had implemented at least one guided-inquiry lab in the entire nine-month period were treated as users of inquiry. The number of guided-inquiry lab experiments organized by them was varied, but I did not collect such data and investigate how the degree of implementation of inquiry labs affects teacher beliefs. Researchers should try to include this research question in their future research design. ’ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
bS
Supporting Information The Chinese version of the 12 GIS items. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
1467
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
Journal of Chemical Education
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
’ REFERENCES (1) Bretz, S. L., Ed.; Chemistry in the National Science Education Standards, 2nd ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008. (2) Hume, A.; Coll, R. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2010, 28, 43–62. (3) Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 820–822. (4) Lechtanski, V. L. Inquiry-Based Experiments in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2000. (5) National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000. (6) Herrington, D. G.; Yezierski, E. J.; Luxford, K. M.; Luxford, C. J. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011, 12, 74–84. (7) Backus, L. Sci. Teacher 2005, 72, 54–58. (8) Cacciatore, K. L.; Sevian, H. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 498–505. (9) Deters, K. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1178–1180. (10) Gibson, H. L.; Chase, C. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 693–705. (11) Hofstein, A.; Shore, R.; Kipnis, M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 47–62. (12) Lord, T.; Orkwiszewski, T. Am. Biol. Teacher 2006, 68, 342– 345. (13) Roehrig, G.; Garrow, S. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2007, 29, 1789–1811. (14) Tuan, H. L.; Chin, C. C.; Tsai, C. C.; Cheng, S. F. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2005, 3, 541–566. (15) Abraham, M. R.; Pavelich, M. J. Inquiries into Chemistry; Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, 1999. (16) Kerner, N. K.; Lamba, R. S. Guided Inquiry Experiments for General Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, 2008. (17) Bauer, R. C.; Birk, J. P.; Sawyer, D. J. Laboratory Inquiry in Chemistry; Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA, 2009. (18) Shaw, J. L; Dockery, C. R.; Lewis, S. E.; Harris, L.; Bettis, R. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1416–1418. (19) Millar, R.; Abrahams, I. Sch. Sci. Rev. 2009, 91 (334), 59–64. (20) Cheung, D. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2008, 6, 107–130. (21) Blanchard, M. R.; Southerland, S. A.; Osborne, J. W.; Sampson, V. D; Annetta, L. A.; Granger, E. M. Sci. Educ. 2010, 94, 577–616. (22) Cheung, D. Inquiry-Based Laboratory Work in Chemistry: Teacher’s Guide; The Chinese University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, 2006. Also available at: http://www3.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/chemistry/ (accessed Aug 2011). (23) Education Bureau. Investigative Study in Chemistry: Exemplars of Learning and Teaching Activities; The Government Logistics Department: Hong Kong, 2009. (24) Cheung, D. Hong Kong Sci. Teachers’ J. 2006, 23, 1–7. (25) Jones, M. G.; Carter, G. Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2007; pp 1067 1104. (26) Richardson, V. The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning To Teach. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education; Sikula, J., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1996; pp 102 119. (27) Turner, J. C.; Christensen, A.; Meyer, D. K. Teachers’ Beliefs about Student Learning and Motivation. In International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching, Saha, L. J., Dworkin, A. G., Eds.; Springer Science: New York, 2009; pp 361 371. (28) Guerra, P. L.; Nelson, S. W. Phi Delta Kappan 2009, 90, 354–359. (29) Hunzicker, J. Principal 2004, 84, 44–46. (30) Roehrig, G. H.; Luft, J. A. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 3–24. (31) Roehrig, G. H.; Luft, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1510–1516. (32) Miller, T. R.; Cleary, T. A. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1993, 53, 51–60. (33) Pilotte, W. J.; Gable, R. K. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1990, 50, 603–610. (34) Schmitt, N.; Stults, D. M. Applied Psychological Measurement 1985, 9, 367–373.
ARTICLE
(35) Byrne, B. M. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 1998. (36) Green, S. B.; Salkind, N. J. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Boston, MA, 2011. (37) Welch, W.; Klofer, L.; Aikenhead, G.; Robinson, J. Sci. Educ. 1981, 65, 33–50. (38) Olson, S. Strengthening High School Chemistry Education through Teacher Outreach Programs; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. (39) Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W. H. Freeman: New York, 1997. (40) Sanger, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 297–302. (41) Wright, S. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1616A–1616B.
1468
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1008409 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1462–1468
