Technology‐rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*

Abstract

What are the barriers to technology-rich inquiry pedagogy in urban science classrooms, and what kinds of programs and support structures allow these barriers to be overcome? Research on the pedagogical practices within urban classrooms suggests that as a result of many constraints, many urban teachers' practices emphasize directive, controlling teaching, that is, the``pedagogy of poverty'' (Haberman, 1991), rather than the facilitation of students' ownership and control over their learning, as advocated in inquiry science. On balance, research programs that advocate standards-based or inquiry teaching pedagogies demonstrate strong learning outcomes by urban students. This study tracked classroom research on a technology-rich inquiry weather program with six urban science teachers. The teachers implemented this program in coordination with a district-wide middle school science reform. Results indicated that despite many challenges in the ®rst year of implementation, students in all 19 classrooms of this program demonstrated signi®cant content and inquiry gains. In addition, case study data comprised of twice-weekly classroom observations and interviews with the six teachers suggest support structures that were both conducive and challenging to inquiry pedagogy. Our work has extended previous studies on urban science pedagogy and practices as it has begun to articulate what role the technological component plays either in contributing to the challenges we experienced or in helping urban science classrooms to realize inquiry science and other positive learning values. Although these data outline results after only the ®rst year of systemic reform, we suggest that they begin to build evidence for the role of technology-rich inquiry programs in combating the pedagogy of poverty in urban science classrooms. ß

Provision of Inquiry Instruction and Actual Level of Practice as Perceived by Science Teachers and their Students

“…Globally, the literature related to science education indicates that the implementation of inquirybased teaching and learning in science classroom practices may not be at a level that matches the efforts and emphasis provided by different educational authorities who call for consistent implementation of such instruction in the classroom (Aoki, Foster, & Ramsey, 2005). Internationally, it is said that science teachers view inquiry positively; however, little data exist to show that teachers use inquiry instruction (Kim, Tan, & Talue, 2013;Minelli, 2012;Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002).…”

Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation

“…In the late 1950s, when the National Science Foundation first funded the design of hands-on science materials for schools, curriculum developers became frustrated by what they saw as teachers' failure to enact curricula in ways that reflected an understanding of the structure of scientific disciplines (Bruner, 1960). More recently, learning sciences researchers engaged in curriculum development projects have found that teachers using reform-oriented curriculum materials enact them either to a limited extent or in ways that do not reflect the intentions of designers (Brown & Campione, 1996;Reiser et al, 2000;Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002;Spillane, 1999). These observations about science curriculum implementation are similar to observations made about reading and mathematics programs, where concern about implementation and the consequences of poor implementation on impacts on student outcomes are recurring themes in evaluation studies (Rowan, Camburn, & Correnti, 2004;Sarama, Clements, & Henry, 1998).…”

The roles of regional partners in supporting an international earth science education program

“…These particular findings call not only for further replication within GLOBE, but they also call for replication within other kinds of earth science programs with different designs and teacher supports. Many earth science programs share with GLOBE several features that make them challenging to implement: field-based research that may require the establishment of datamonitoring stations outside the classroom, Internet-based data reporting, and a focus on content that typically comprises a smaller portion of the science curriculum standards in most states than other areas of science (Barstow & Geary, 2002;Feldman, Konold, & Coulter, 1999;Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002). Research on intermediaries in earth science education, therefore, has the potential to inform how other programs address these challenges.…”