Comparing Classroom Enactments of an Inquiry Curriculum: Lessons Learned From Two Teachers

Abstract

Examining how teachers structure the activities in a unit and how they facilitate classroom discussion is important to understand how innovative technology-rich curricula work in the context of classroom instruction. This study compared 2 enactments of an inquiry curriculum, then examined students' learning outcomes in classes taught by 2 teachers. The quantitative data show that there were significant differences in the learning outcomes of students in classes of the 2 teachers. This study then examined classroom enactments by the 2 teachers to understand the differences in the learning outcomes. This research specifically focused on how teacher-led discussions (a) helped connect the activities within a curriculum unit and (b) enabled deeper conceptual understanding by helping students make connections between science concepts and principles. This study examined the role that teacher facilitation played in helping students focus on the relations between the various activities in the unit and the concepts that they were learning. The results point to important differences in the 2 enactments, helping to understand better what strategies might enable a deeper conceptual understanding of the science content.

Notes

¹Teacher and student names are pseudonyms.

²Modified from the Learning by Design” curriculum at Georgia Tech.

³Students in both the teachers' classes created three practice maps before the midterm map. The idea of concept maps was introduced before the start of the unit, and students created two maps in another science topic. Thus, a total of five maps were drawn by students in each class, before the midterm map. The importance of students' familiarity with concept maps has been emphasized in research on using this technique as a form of assessment (e.g., Shavelson, Lang, & Lewin, 1994). Therefore, maps drawn before the midterm maps were not used in the analysis to allow students sufficient practice drawing concept maps.

^aN = 67.

^bN = 53.

⁴Pre- and posttests from students who declined to have their data used in the study are not used in the analysis.