There have been repeated calls for more widespread use of inquiry-oriented science instruction in K–12 education. At the same time, questions have been raised regarding whether the amount of time in school schedules for science instruction is sufficient to support inquiry-based teaching. This study investigates the relationship between the time available for science instruction and the extent to which eighth-grade science teachers used inquiry-oriented instructional practices in their teaching.
Research Questions
We consider two research questions: (1) To what extent is teachers’ use of inquiry-oriented instructional practices related to the time available for science instruction during the school week? (2) To what extent do differences in teachers’ professional training to teach science impact the relationship between instructional time and science teachers’ use of inquiry-based instructional practices?
Research Design
We use data from the 2011 NAEP Grade Eight Science Assessment and multilevel linear modeling to analyze the relationship between instructional time and science teacher practices. Our analyses include approximately 11,520 eighth-grade teachers in 6,850 public schools.
Findings
The extent to which science teachers used inquiry-oriented instructional practices in their teaching was related to the amount of time available for science instruction. Teachers with 5 or more hours per week were more likely to use inquiry-oriented instructional practices, and the extent to which teachers engaged in reform-oriented science instruction increased with more time for instruction. The relationship between instructional time and teacher practice was largely independent of teacher qualifications, suggesting that instructional time impacts teacher instructional practice regardless of teachers’ educational background, training, or science teaching experience.
Conclusions
Identifying optimal allocations of instructional time is a relevant consideration in efforts to promote the types of reform-oriented science teaching called for by the National Research Council's Framework for K–12 Science Education, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and other national and state science assessments. Although investments in teacher training and professional development are also necessary and important investments, with insufficient time, even the most qualified or best trained science teachers may struggle to use inquiry-based instructional approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 131, 1—12.
2.
BanilowerE.CohenK.PasleyJ., & WeissI. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research tell us?Center on Instruction, Horizon Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521576.pdf
3.
BanilowerE.HeckD. J., & WeissI. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 443, 375—395.
4.
BanilowerE.SmithS.WeissI.MalzahnK.CampbellK., & WeisA. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541798.pdf
5.
BarronG.SchwartzD.VyeN.MooreA.PetrosinoA.ZechL., & BransfordJ. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 73, 271—311.
6.
BerlinerD. C. (1990). What's all the fuss about instructional time? In Ben-PeretzM., & BrommeR. (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3—35). Teachers College Press.
7.
BlankR. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap?Science Education, 976, 830—847.
8.
BlumenfeldP.SolowayE.MarxP.KrajcikJ.GuzdialM., & PalincsarA. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369—399.
9.
BreddermanT. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 534, 499—518.
10.
CappsD. K., & CrawfordB. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening?Journal of Science Teacher Education, 243, 497—526. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z
11.
CarrollJ. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 181, 26—31.
12.
The Center for the Future of Teaching & Learning. (2012). Lost opportunities: The status of science education in California middle schools. WestEd. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534754.pdf
13.
ClarkD., & LinnM. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 124, 451—493.
14.
CooperJ. L.MacGregorJ.SmithK. A., & RobinsonP. (2002). Implementing small- group instruction: Insights from successful practitioners. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 200081, 63—76.
15.
DuschlR. A.SchweingruberH. A., & ShouseA. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. The National Academies Press.
16.
FaulknerS., & CookC. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: The perceived impact of assessment demands on middle grades instructional practices. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 297, 1—13.
17.
FenshamP. J., & HarlenW. (1999). School science and public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 217, 755—763.
18.
FoglemanJ.McNeillK. L., & KrajcikJ. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 482, 149—169.
19.
FurtakE. M.SeidelT.IversonH., & BriggsD. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 823, 300—329.
20.
GeierR.BlumenfeldP.MarxR.KrajcikJ.FishmanB.SolowayE., & Clay-ChambersJ. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 458, 922—939.
21.
GoodT.McCaslinM.TsangH.ZhangJ.WileyC.BozackA., & HesterW. (2006). How well do 1st-year teachers teach: Does type of preparation make a difference?Journal of Teacher Education, 574, 410—430.
HornL. (1992). A profile of American eighth-grade mathematics and science instruction (NCES 92-486). National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED347094.pdf
24.
JonesR., & SwansonE. (2009). Understanding elementary teachers’ use of science teaching time: Lessons from the Big Sky Science partnership. The Journal of Mathematics and Science, 11, 163—192.
25.
JudsonE. (2013). The relationship between time allocated for science in elementary schools and state accountability policies. Science Education, 974, 621—636.
26.
KahleJ. B.MeeceJ., & ScantleburyK. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students. Does standards-based teaching make a difference?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 379, 1019—1041.
27.
KanterD. E., & KonstantopoulosS. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 945, 855—887.
28.
KetelhutD. J., & NewtonK. J. (2011, December). Development of mathematics and science teacher efficacy during an alternative middle grades certification program. The Urban Education Collaborative, Temple University College of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532058.pdf
29.
KolbeT., & JorgensonS. (2018). Meeting instructional standards for middle-level science: Which teachers are most prepared?The Elementary School Journal, 118(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/697540
30.
KrajcikJ.BlumenfeldP.MarxR., & SolowayE. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 945, 483—497.
31.
KrajcikJ.McNeillK. L., & ReiserB. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 921, 1—32.
32.
MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP. C.KrajcikJ. S.FishmanB.SolowayE.GeierR., & Tal RevitalT. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4110, 1063—1080.
33.
MarxR., & HarrisC. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 1065, 125—145.
34.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 211, 29—45.
MortonB., & DaltonB. (2007). Changes in instructional hours in four subjects by public school teachers of Grades 1 through 4 (2007–305). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497041.pdf
37.
MullensJ., & GaylerK. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (NCES 1999-08). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
38.
MullensJ., & KasprzykD. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys. U.S. Department of Education.
39.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. The National Academies Press.
42.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 Science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
43.
National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. The National Academies Press.
44.
OliveiraA. W.WilcoxK. C.AngelisJ.ApplebeeA. N.AmodeoV., & SnyderM. A. (2013). Best practice in middle-school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 242, 297—322.
45.
PatallE.CooperH., & AllenA. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 803, 401—436.
46.
RiceJ.CroningerR., & RoellkeC. (2002). The effect of block scheduling high school mathematics courses on student achievement and teachers’ use of time: Implications for educational productivity. Economics of Education Review, 216, 599—607.
47.
RoehrigG. H.KruseR. A., & KernA. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 447, 883—907.
48.
RomanceN., & VitaleM. (2006). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 296, 545—554.
49.
RossJ. A.McDougallD.Hogaboam-GrayA., & LeSageA. (2003). A survey measuring elementary teachers’ implementation of standards-based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 344, 344—363.
50.
RothW. M.TobinK., & RitchieS. M. (2007). Time and temporality as mediators of science learning. Science Education, 921, 115—140.
51.
SchneiderR. M.KrajcikJ.MarxR. W., & SolowayE. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 395, 410—422.
52.
SchroederC. M.ScottT. P.TolsonH.HuangT.-Y., & LeeY.-H. (2007). A meta analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4410, 1436—1460.
ShymanskyJ. A.HedgesL. V., & WoodworthG. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 272, 127—144.
55.
SmithT.DesimoneL.ZeidnerT.DunnA.BhattM., & RumyantsevaN. (2007). Inquiry-oriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 293, 169—199.
56.
StageE. K.AsturiasH.CheukT.DaroP. A., & HamptonS. B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation standards. Science, 3406130, 276.
57.
SupovitzJ., & TurnerH. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 379, 963—980.
TretterT. R., & JonesG. M. (2003). Relationships between inquiry-based teaching and physical science standardized test scores. School Science and Mathematics, 1031, 89—122.
61.
WilsonC. D.TaylorJ. A.KowalskiS. M., & CarlsonJ. (2009). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 473, 276—301.
WindschitlM. (2004). What types of knowledge do teachers use to engage learners in “doing science”? Rethinking the continuum of preparation and professional development for secondary science educators. High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, University of Washington. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_073331.pdf
