Encouraging Teachers to Adopt Inquiry-Based Learning by Engaging in Participatory Design

Encouraging Teachers to Adopt Inquiry-Based Learning by Engaging in Participatory Design Daniel Hannon, Ethan Danahy, Leslie Schneider, Eric Coopey, Gary Garber dan.hannon@tufts.edu, et

Encouraging Teachers to Adopt Inquiry-Based Learning by Engaging in Participatory Design

Daniel Hannon, Ethan Danahy, Leslie Schneider, Eric Coopey, Gary Garber

dan.hannon@tufts.edu, ethan.danahy@tufts.edu, leslie.schneid@gmail.com, eric.coopey@tufts.edu, ggarber@bu.edu

Abstract - Inquiry-based methods are effective for STEM

education, but perceived as difficult to implement Often

teachers have not experienced inquiry-based learning

themselves, which limits their appreciation of the value

of these methods Changing this situation requires

modifications at the classroom level to simplify

implementation of inquiry-based methods and

modifications at the teacher level to encourage their

adoption A participatory design project is described that

is part of a multi-year program in which five high school

physics teachers are collaborating with researchers at

Tufts University to develop classroom educational

technology tools for promoting inquiry-based education.

By participating in a technology-design project, teachers

are experiencing the inquiry process as well as

developing tools that will facilitate using inquiry-based

methods in their classrooms The research and design

effort to date has led to requirements for (and a

prototype of) a classroom tool that promotes students

sharing their own ideas An overview of the design is

provided along with a discussion of the activities planned

for the implementation phase.

Index Terms – Participatory design, inquiry-based learning,

educational technology

I NTRODUCTION

It is widely understood that collaborative design of

technologies and activities are effective at supporting inquiry

learning for science, technology, engineering and math

(STEM) education improves student content and processing

skills Yet teachers are often reluctant to engage in these

methods noting many barriers, such as excessive time

demands, lack of materials or equipment, and lack of student

readiness Although educators acknowledge the value of the

type of student-centered, open-ended problem solving

activities that comprise inquiry-based learning, even the

most experienced and inquiry-oriented teachers will tend to

utilize teacher-centered activities (e.g., lecturing or pre-made

lab exercises) when other job demands compete for their

time [1][2] Additionally, the layout of conventional

classrooms (i.e., students at desks, teachers at the front of the

room) reinforces this teaching style Realizing more

inquiry-based student-design learning in STEM education, therefore,

will require both a change in the affordance structure of the

classroom and supports for teachers that lower the barriers to

engage in these methods Technology has an important role

to play, but only if it is tightly tightly integrated with a pedagogically sound instructional process and classroom activities [3][4]

Collaborative inquire learning represents a huge departure from traditional pedagogical methods and has enormous implications for research, design, and professional development Teachers require encouragement to utilize inquiry-based methods due to their limited experience with them Many teachers, particularly those new to the field, have not experienced an inquiry-based learning process for themselves when they were students and are not fully aware

of the powerful impact on student learning According to Dillenbourg and Jermann [5], teachers need to be empowered to innovate in the classroom as an “orchestrator”

of curriculum, assessment, time, and space, among other things In addition to classroom-based changes that support inquiry-based learning, teachers also need to participate in inquiry-based learning activities so they can better understand the impact of their teaching style on their own students

The role of researchers is not just as agents of

“technology transfer” but as “innovation guides, who help schools better understand how needs, approaches, benefits and alternatives fit together compellingly and cohesively in order to develop innovative solutions” [6] And technology development is viewed as iterative and transformative that involves engaging students and teachers in a collaborative participatory design process

The present investigation is aimed at meeting these two purposes, by engaging a team of five high school physics teachers as members of a participatory design team tasked with the development of educational technology tools for promoting inquiry-based physics education A multi-year project is being conducted in which teachers collaborate with researchers from the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach (CEEO) at Tufts University in the design of the technology tools and in the classroom implementation In the process, the teachers both engage in their own collaborative inquiry-based learning activity (i.e., technology design) and practice using inquiry-based learning

in the classroom with their own students during implementation

P ARTICIPANTS

Five high school physics teachers from different school districts comprise the participatory design team, one female, four males Three are from urban school districts, two from

/10/$25.00 ©2012 IEEE March 9, 2012, Ewing, NJ

rural; two are from private schools, and three from public

schools; one teacher works with special needs students; two

teachers are relatively early in their careers, and three have

10 or more years of experience The schools also differ in

the availability of educational technology resources and

class sizes This group of test schools also include students

that represent a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic

backgrounds ranging from primarily Caucasian (Littleton

High School), to Somerville and Fenway with over 60%

minority students and more than 70% on free/reduced lunch,

to Sant Bani with 15% foreign students See table 1 for

more specifics on the participants

TABLE I

P ARTICIPANTS IN S TUDY

School Type Size Location Setting

BU Academy Private Small Boston MA Urban

Somerville HS Public Large Somerville MA Urban

Fenway HS Public Small Boston MA Urban

Sant Bani School Private Small Sanbornton NH Rural

Littleton HS Public Small Littleton NH Rural

M ETHODS

Several different methods for knowledge elicitation have

been used to understand current teaching practices and to

gather teacher input for design First, researchers from the

CEEO performed several classroom observations in each

school Next, a task analysis was conducted with each

teacher individually for the development and

implementation of an inquiry-based learning activity was

conducted This was followed by a prticipatory design

workshop with researchers and teachers to dicuss and

identify barriers to conducting inquiry-based education

From these results, design philosophies, general

requirements, and technical specifications were determined

for tools that would facilitate inquiry-based learning in the

classroom

R ESULTS

Classroom observations yielded a mixture of results that

were somewhat unique to each teacher All relied, for

various amounts, on a teacher-focused approach that

involved lectures and worksheets To some degree, the more

experienced teachers were observed utilizing a greater

variety of methods, including open-ended questioning, but

there were no obvious and consistent themes correlated with

any particular group of participants

Interviews with the teachers yielded two different

approaches to the planning and execution of inquiry-based

activities One approach focused more on the planning of a

lesson in advance with varying degrees of open-ended

activities for the students Teachers differed slightly in how

much preparation time would be needed, but all appeared to

be taking responsibility for student success by insuring that

everything was ready ahead of time (i.e., lab equipment,

worksheets, etc.) The second approach was focused

primarily on the problem being solved and engaged the

identifying what equipment would be needed, how they would get it, and who would do the work

The participatory design workshops engaged the teachers as co-creators in the technology design and development process itself They worked with researchers and technologists to define different approaches to implementing collaborative inquiry-based activities in the classroom and identified potential barriers to success Prominent barriers included taking into account the different levels of students (e.g., conceptual physics vs mathematically-based physics), student readiness for tackling inquiry-based activities, and the technology and equipment available for completing inquiry-based activities Teachers noted that differing student levels would limit the extensiveness of what they attempted It was also noted that students often haven’t had much exposure to collaborative inquiry-based learning themselves and would need to build

up to more involved projects A teacher in a rural district noted that his students had been together for many years and were perhaps more comfortable working together than students in a more dynamic urban school system environment The availability of equipment, including educational technology resources, such as Internet access, was also considered as a potential barrier

D ESIGN

A significant theme that emerged from the participatory design workshops was the need to promote student collaboration as an element of the inquiry process [4][7] In order to change the focus of learning from a teacher-centric into a student-centric activity, the emphasis needs be on students generating and sharing their ideas as they negotiate and share meanings relevant to the problem-solving task The next step, therefore, was to utilize the observation, interview, and participatory design workshop results to formalize the design requirements for a tool that would support student collaboration and sharing These included:

 Require a minimal technology footprint, ideally utilizing existing resources in each classroom

 Allow students to participate actively and contribute ideas and inputs that can be viewed, shared, and valued by all

 Allow teachers multiple ways of working with the tool to support teacher-centric (if needed) and student-centric activity

 Allow for ease of access for students and teachers

 Allow students to take initiative for their own learning, and explore and improve on ideas from different perspectives

These requirements led to the following design for an in-class tool that allows student information to be aggregated and viewed on a common screen via a projector Individual student work can be selected for viewing, along with composites from multiple students, to engage the entire class

teacher doing all the thinking, this encourages students to

contribute and learn from one another The illustration in

Figure 1 provides a schematic of how this tool works

FIGURE 1 TOOL ’ S FUNCTIONALITY , INCLUDING TEACHER PREPARATION , STUDENT

CONTRIBUTIONS , DATA AGGREGATION , AND GROUP VIEWING

D ISCUSSION

By actively participating in the design process, the teachers

have been engaging in their own collaborative inquiry-based

learning activity The open-ended nature of this has led to

many discussions among them as they compared their

different points of view about teaching, listened to each

other, debated the merits of different approaches, and built

off of and improved upon each others’ ideas Following

Koschmann [8] and others involved in the study of

computer-supported collaborative learning, the goal for

design (and learning) is “constituted of the interactions

between participants” [8] The development and

implementation of this tool is happening as a result of

teachers’ participation and they are able to directly see the

result of their efforts as the tool materializes (Figure 2

shows screenshots of the tool’s initial prototype that is

currently being tested in classrooms now.)

Perhaps what is most significant about this experience is

that, as often is the case in product design, the process is not

sequential or linear There are many tangential discussions,

arguments over minor details, disagreements, and

frustrations However, the emergence of a useful product is

the result of all of these events Therefore, it is the

willingness to work together to create “artifacts, activities,

and environment that enhance practices of group meaning

making” [7] that is the basis of collaborative inquiry-based learning For teachers to engage their students in

inquiry-/10/$25.00 ©2012 IEEE March 9, 2012, Ewing, NJ

FIGURE 2

P ROTOTYPE S CREENSHOTS

based learning, they must believe in this process The value

of having the teachers engage in the participatory making of

meaning in the context of joint activity, in part, is that they

experience for themselves how inquiry-based learning

works

The additional benefit from this activity is the

emergence of a tool that promotes collaborative

inquiry-based learning for students The tool has been co-designed

with teachers who are now themselves better tuned into the

inquiry-based learning process In the end, the tool is able to

support many different learning styles Hopefully, the

teachers will continue to explore new ways of integrating it

into their practice

In fact, some early brainstorms have already emerged

from the initial group of teachers The use of this tool in the

classroom can range from heavily scaffolded questions to

largely open-ended design challenges Instead of being fed

equations and concepts by the teacher-lecturer, the tool can

be used to enable students to work together to develop

theories and the mathematics behind them in guided inquiry

learning For instance, within a class of several small groups

of students, image collection from student work on white

boards can allow varied approaches to the same problem,

using written logic, algebraic equations, or diagrams and

geometry After the student contributions have been

aggregated, the teacher can organize the submissions into

trends (and differences) that the students can easily view,

summarize, and argue for or against After ideas have been

developed, the tool can also be used to help students test

theories by designing experiments and models (instead of

performing a canned experiment.) After aggregating

different ideas, student groups can narrow down their

experimental proposals to a few ideas to actually implement

and test The same can be said for modeling and working

with computer simulations to represent a problem At the

end of a unit, students can each present the results from their

experiments, models, simulations, etc to share different approaches to tackling the same problem

The next phase of this project is to implement the tool in the classrooms and assess teacher and student use In addition to learning gains, the Tufts CEEO researchers will

be exploring student engagement and satisfaction with the use of the tool Social network analysis will be used to determine whether students collaborating and sharing information promotes new social structures in the classroom and allows for new connections to be made among students

A CKNOWLEDGMENT

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No 1119321 Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

R EFERENCES

[1] Chinn, C A and Malhotra, B A., “Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry

tasks.” Science Education, 86, 2002, pp 175–218.

[2] Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V,

Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas,

1993.

[3] Barron, B J S., Schwartz, D L., Vye, N J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., and Zech, L., “Doing with understanding: Lessons from

research on problem- and project-based learning.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 1998, pp 271–311.

[4] Gertzman, A., and Kolodner, J L., “A case study of problem-based learning in a middle-school science class: Lessons learned.”

International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1996.

[5] Dillenbourg, P and Jermann, P., “Technology for Classroom

Orchestration.” New Science of Learning, 2010, pp 525-552.

[6] Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, W R., Nussbaum, M., and Claro, S “Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: impact on students’ mathematics

learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development,

10.1007/s 11423-009-9142-9, 2009.

[7] Stahl, G., Goschmann, T., and Suthers, D., “Computer-supported

collaborative learning: An historical perspective.” Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences, 2001, pp 409-426.

[8] Koschmann, T., CSCL: Theory and Practice of an emerging paradigm, 1996, pp 307-320.

A UTHOR I NFORMATION

Daniel Hannon, Professor of the Practice, Department of

Mechanical Engineering/Human Factors, Tufts University

Ethan Danahy, Research Assistant Professor, Department

of Computer Science, Tufts University

Leslie Schneider, Project Manager, Center for Engineering

Education and Outreach (CEEO), Tufts University

Eric Coopey, Ph.D Candidate, Department of Computer

/10/$25.00 ©2012 IEEE March 9, 2012, Ewing, NJ