Using Discrepant Events in Science Demonstrations to Promote Student Engagement in Scientific Investigations:

An Action Research Study

by

Vincent J. Mancuso

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Supervised by

Dr. Raffaella Borasi

Dr. April Luehmann

Warner School of Education and Human Development

University of Rochester Rochester, New York

2010

ii

Acknowledgement

Although only my name appears on its cover, there have been others who have contributed tremendous efforts to the production of this dissertation. I have been incredibly fortunate to have had two remarkable advisors for the past three years, Dr. Raffaella Borasi and Dr. April Luehmann. It is truly because of their time, guidance, insight, and support that my dissertation has become the body of work that it is. To them I owe deep gratitude for the countless ways in which they have influenced my growth as a student and an individual. I would also like to thank Dr. Cindy Callard. Her efforts and guidance as one of my committee members were integral in the direction, focus and strength of my study and this paper. I am deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to share my experiences with my cohort members, Ellen, Pete, and John. Their support and friendship have grown into very special relationships that I will value for the rest of my life. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my family. My efforts were only successful because of the unwavering patience and support from my wife, Nancy. The additional work and worry that she endured through my studies has been a testament to her love and commitment. Along with her, it is my son, Nicholas, and my daughter, Cara who are the driving force and inspiration behind all that I do. My world turns because of you. Cara and Nick, I hope that I can somehow inspire you both as much as you have inspired me. This dissertation is dedicated to the three of you- thank you Cara, Nick, and Nancy. I could not have accomplished any of this without you. I would also like to thank my parents, Sylvia and John for the freedom and encouragement to pursue my ambitions and dreams. A nurturing, loving family is the foundation of all success. This has been an incredible experience for me. Thank you all very much.

iii

Table of Contents Abstract Page vii Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Overview Page 1 1.2. Statement of the problem and goals of the study Page 2 1.3. Action research as the chosen methodology Page 5 1.4. Theoretical framework for the proposed study Page 6 1.5. Overview of the research design Page 7 1.6. Preview of key findings Page 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1. Introduction and overview Page 13 2.2. Situated cognition as the main theoretical framework Page 14 2.3. Conceptual change theory Page 19 2.4. Inquiry-based school science reform Page 21 2.5. Research on demonstrations Page 27 2.6. Research on discrepant events Page 30

Chapter 3: Design of the Study

3.1. Introduction and overview Page 32 3.2. Action research Page 32 3.3. Context of the study and participant recruitment Page 34 3.4. Positionality of the researcher Page 36 3.5. Research questions and overview of the study design Page 37 3.6. Curricular context Page 42 3.7. Detailed plan for the intervention Page 43 3.8. Data collection Page 54 3.8.1. Classroom transcripts Page 54

3.8.2. Reflective journals Page 54 3.8.3. Other student work Page 55 3.8.4. Teacher log Page 55 3.8.5. Observer’s charts Page 56 3.8.6. Final class reflection Page 56 3.8.7. Semi-structured interviews Page 56

3.9. Data analysis Page 57

Chapter 4: Findings 4.1. Introduction and overview Page 59 4.2. Narrative account of how the three instructional designs played out Page 59

4.2.1 Students develop an investigation following a discrepant Page 59 event using POE 4.2.2 Students develop an investigation following a lecture Page 73 4.2.3 Students develop an investigation following a discrepant event Page 84 using NOE

iv

4.3 Research question one 4.3.1 How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE Page 97 impact how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event? 4.3.2 How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE Page 106 impact students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

4.4 Research question two 4.4.1 How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact Page 110 how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event? 4.4.2 How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact Page 115 students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study? 4.5 Research question three 4.5.1 What are similarities and differences in how students Page 119 design, conduct and interpret their own investigation in the three scenarios (POE, NOE, L/I)? 4.5.2 What are similarities and differences in students’ interest Page 132 in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study in the three scenarios (POE, NOE, L/I)? 4.6 Discussion Page 135

Chapter 5: Actions Resulting From This Research Study 5.1 Introduction and overview Page 143 5.2 Impact on participants Page 143 5.3 Impact on my teaching practice Page 145 5.4 Other actions resulting from this study Page 149 5.5 Future action research plans Page 150 Chapter 6: Conclusion 6.1 Introduction and overview Page 154 6.2 Summary of the key findings Page 155 6.3 Limitations of the study Page 159 6.4 Contributions to the field Page 160 6.5 Recommendations to science teachers Page 167 6.6 Further research Page 167 6.7 Concluding thoughts Page 169

References Page 172 Appendices Appendix A: Background Information

A.1. Curriculum map for the course Page 178 A.2. Detailed lesson plans for Unit 2 Page 181

v

A.3. Detailed lesson plans for Unit 3 Page 184

Appendix B: Data Collection Tools B.1. Journal entry prompts Page 187 B.2. Guiding questions for final class reflection / journal Page 188 entry prompts for final class reflection B.3. Observation chart Page 189 B.4. Teacher log prompts Page 190 B.5. Questions for follow-up student interview Page 191

Appendix C: Data Analysis Tools C.1. Data collection and analysis chart Page 192 C.2. Rating form for quality of research question Page 208 C.3. Rating form for quality of research design/protocol Page 209 C.4. Rating form for quality of observation/data analysis Page 210 C.5. Rating form for quality of conclusions Page 211

Appendix D: Data Summary and Samples D.1. Number of investigable research questions per student Page 212

D.2. Rating for rigor of research questions Page 213 D.3. Rating for centrality of research questions Page 214 D.4. Rating for prediction suitability of research questions Page 215 D.5. Rating for protocol rigor Page 216 D.6. Rating for protocol detail Page 217 D.7. Rating for appropriateness of protocol to research question Page 218 D.8. Rating for centrality of observations Page 219 D.9. Rating for data collection rigor Page 220 D.10. Rating for detail of observations Page 221 D.11. Rating for coherence of conclusions Page 222 D.12. Rating for central concept articulation of conclusions Page 223 D.13. Independent observer engagement data Page 224 D.14. Student interest rating for units (class journal entry) Page 225 D.15. Student interest rating for units (final reflection journal entry) Page 226 D.16. Student value rating for units (final reflection journal entry) Page 227 D.17. Unit 2- POE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 228 developed by each student D.18. Unit 2- NOE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 231 developed by each student D.19. Unit 2- L/I: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 234 developed by each student D.20. Unit 3- POE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 237 developed by each student D.21. Unit 3- NOE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 241 developed by each student D.22. Unit 3- L/I: Research questions, predictions and conclusions Page 245 developed by each student

vi

D.23. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 248 by Unit 2 POE students D.24. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 249 by Unit 2 NOE students D.25. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 250 by Unit 2 L/I students D.26. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 251 by Unit 3 POE students D.27. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 252 by Unit 3 NOE students D.28. Complete list of research questions and variables developed Page 253 by Unit 3 L/I students

vii

Abstract Students’ scientific investigations have been identified in national standards and

related reform documents as a critical component of students’ learning experiences in school,

yet it is not easy to implement them in science classrooms. Could science demonstrations

help science teachers put this recommendation into practice? While demonstrations are a

common practice in the science classroom and research has documented some positive

effects in terms of student motivation and engagement from their use, the literature also

shows that, as traditionally presented, science demonstrations do not always achieve their

intended outcomes. This, in turn, suggested the value of investigating what design elements

of demonstrations could be used to promote specific instructional goals.

Employing action research as a methodology, the proposed study was developed to

explore how science demonstrations can be designed so as to most effectively promote

student engagement in scientific investigations. More specifically, I was interested in

examining the effects of using a discrepant event as part of the demonstration, as a way to

create cognitive conflict and, thus, increase interest and engagement. I also investigated the

relative merit of the well-researched POE (Predict, Observe, Explain) design versus

employing demonstrations that appear to the student to be unplanned (what I will refer to as

NOE, or a Naturally Occurring Experience). This study was informed by Constructivism,

Situated Cognition and Conceptual Change as theoretical frameworks.

The project included the design, implementation and study of an intervention

consisting of three instructional units designed to support students’ learning of the concepts

of density, molecular arrangement of gas particles, and cohesion, respectively. In each of

these units, lasting a total of two 80-minute class periods, students were asked to design and

viii

conduct an investigation to gain a better understanding of the concept under study. In one

case, though, the investigation was preceded by a discrepant event demonstration using POE,

in another case the investigation was preceded by an NOE discrepant event demonstration,

and in the third case the student investigation was preceded by an interactive lecture

(Lecture/Inquiry, or L/I) instead of a demonstration.

The intervention took place in Fall 2009 in three sections of the same middle school science

course I taught. Data from these experiences were collected and analyzed to evaluate the impact

of each unit on (a) students’ interest in learning more about the scientific phenomenon under study;

and (b) how students designed, conducted and interpreted their own investigation to explain the

event. These findings were further compared across experiences to identify similarities and

differences connected with the three design approaches utilized – i.e., inquiry following a

discrepant event demonstration using POE, an NOE discrepant event demonstration, or an

interactive lecture.

Data sources included: audiotapes of each lesson, students’ written work, teacher’s

written reflections, observer’s field notes, audiotapes of a final class reflection and semi-

structured student interviews. Qualitative analysis was employed to analyze the data with the

goal of revealing emerging themes addressing each research question.

Findings from this study show that discrepant event demonstrations can indeed

generate student interest and inform worthwhile student-led science investigations without

requiring great time commitment. Furthermore, each lesson design used (POE, NOE, L/I)

offered distinct benefits in the classroom, influencing student engagement and learning

outcomes in valuable and distinct ways. This, in turn, suggests that science teachers should

ix

choose specific design elements when planning to use demonstrations to achieve specific

objectives.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview

This dissertation project employed action research to study how science demonstrations

can be designed so as to provide an effective pedagogical tool to support students’ productive

engagement in scientific investigations. The study included an intervention in a middle

school science course I teach, where a few science demonstrations – all involving a

discrepant event but also utilizing a few different design elements – were implemented and

their effects studied by collecting and analyzing a rich set of qualitative data.

In this first chapter, I will begin by articulating the problem I am trying to address and

the goals of the study, as well as by identifying the theoretical framework and the research

paradigm informing the project. I will also briefly describe the design of the proposed study,

by identifying the research questions framing the study and the data that was collected and

analyzed. The chapter will conclude with a preview of key findings.

Relevant research that informed the proposed study will be summarized in Chapter

Two. Chapter Three will instead provide a detailed description of the research design,

including a more in-depth discussion of the basic tenets of action research and the rationale

for choosing this methodological approach. It will also include a thorough description of the

context of the study and the researcher positionality, participants’ recruitment procedures, the

design of the intervention, and data collection and analysis procedures.

In Chapter Four I will answer the three research questions that inform this study. The

chapter will begin with a narrative account of how each of the three lessons investigated

2

played out in the same unit. I will then provide a detailed account of the major findings

related to each research question. A discussion of these findings will conclude the chapter.

In Chapter Five I will report on the “actions” that resulted from the study. Here I will

first discuss the influence of the study on the participants. I will then articulate how the

findings from the study will influence my future practice as a middle school science teacher.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future research that I am interested in

engaging in as a next phase of this action research study.

In Chapter Six I will present a summary of the findings. I will then identify some

limitations of the study followed by suggestions for future research. The chapter will

conclude with a discussion of the implications for the field of science education and

recommendations for science teachers.

Additional documentation supporting this study is provided in the Appendices and

referred to as appropriate throughout the text.

1.2 Statement of the Problem and Goals of the Study

There is consensus in the science education community that in order for students to learn

the kind of science they need to be successful in today’s society they need to productively

engage in science investigations as a core element of their schooling experience (National

Research Council, 1996, 2000; American Association for the Advancement of Science

[AAAS], 1991; Bybee, 2000). Designing these learning experiences is more challenging

than using the traditional transmission model of delivering instruction (Lawson, 2000;

Luehmann, 2007; Windschitl, 2008). However, science teachers can benefit from

pedagogical tools that can help them design relevant, engaging science investigations that

provide rich learning opportunities for their students.

3

As suggested by my own experience as a science teacher as well as a number of research

studies (as summarized in Chapter Two), science demonstrations could provide one such

pedagogical tool, if appropriately designed and used. Indeed, science demonstrations have

been a common practice in science classrooms (Glasson, 1989), yet often they do not

produce the intended learning outcomes – especially in the context of an inquiry-based

instructional approach. Research has also produced somewhat inconsistent results. On the

one hand, several studies have shown science demonstrations to be quite effective in

capturing students attention, generating interest and promoting understanding (e.g., Buncick,

Betts, & Horgan, 2001; Callan, Crouch, Fagen, & Mazur, 2004; Meyer, Schmidt, Nozawa, &

Paneee, 2003). On the other hand, critics have pointed out several inadequacies of traditional

science demonstrations as they often result in only a limited understanding of the underlying

scientific concepts and may become a disincentive to engage in independent problem solving

and investigations (e.g., Glasson, 1989; Lynch & Zenchak, 2002; Roth, McRobbie, Lucas &

Boutonne, 1997).

These somewhat conflicting results and opinions about the benefits of science

demonstrations as a pedagogical tool can be at least partially explained by the fact that much

of current research on this topic has tried to study the effects of science demonstrations as a

rather “monolithic” instructional strategy, rather than focusing on the purpose and design

elements of specific demonstrations – a limitation identified by Milne and Otieno (2007).

Indeed, as a practitioner myself, I also believe that science teachers might benefit from

research that investigates how a science demonstration could be designed so as to maximize

the potential of producing specific types of learning outcomes. Thus, I designed this

4

dissertation study to focus on the effects of specific design elements within science

demonstrations on students’ engagement in scientific investigations.

One of these key design elements was developing the science demonstration around a

discrepant event – that is, “a phenomenon that occurs in a way that seems to run contrary to

initial reasoning” (Wright and Govindarajan, 1995, p. 25). As discussed in more detail in

Chapter Two, anomalies are a major source of dissatisfaction (Limon, 2001) that can lead

students to question their current conceptions and motivate them to look for explanations

through student-generated investigations which may lead to significant learning and possibly

even conceptual change.

Another design element this study investigated was the role played by having students

engage in explicit predictions as an integral part of the demonstration. Known in the

literature as the Predict, Observe and Explain (POE) model, this strategy actively involves

students in the demonstration by predicting what will occur prior to the event, observing the

event, and finally attempting to explain it, verbally and/or in writing.

The last design element investigated in this study is one that is not currently found in

the literature but rather generated from my own practice, which I will refer to as a Naturally

Occurring Experience (NOE). In my classroom I have sometimes experienced the

introduction of an unscripted demonstration in response to students’ questions or as the result

of seizing an unexpected opportunity. On these occasions, I have noticed a heightened tone

in some students’ involvement and interest. Is it possible that when students perceive an

activity as being spontaneous, naturally occurring from their own self-generated interest

rather than a formal component to the curriculum, their engagement is enhanced? How could

5

educators use this insight to design more effective science demonstrations in their

classrooms? These are some of the questions yet to be explored in current research.

To sum, my past experience with science demonstrations combined with research results

reported in the literature suggests the need for research that investigates the effects of specific

types of demonstrations on students’ engagement in scientific investigations, and the learning

that occurs as a result of these experiences. This dissertation study was designed with the

goal of addressing this need by focusing on the roles played by the use of discrepant events

as demonstrations, engaging students in explicit predictions and explanations (POE), and the

spontaneous curiosity that can be generated by “impromptu” demonstrations (NOE), on their

science investigations.

1.3 Action Research as the Chosen Methodology

I chose action research as the methodological approach for this study, since action

research involves a recursive and reflective process of investigation and analysis motivated

by the desire to improve practice, and is focused on the development and study of an

intervention. This study will follow Mills’ (2007) definition of action research as “any

systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other

stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information about how their

particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn” (p. 5). Since

this study took place in my classroom and will provide an opportunity for me as a teacher

researcher to gain a deeper understanding of my teaching practices and how my students

learn in the context of science demonstrations, it is also consistent with the description of

action research as research conducted by “practitioners using their own site… as the focus of

their study” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007, p. 2).

6

More specifically, in this study I employed the Dialectic Action Research Spiral (Mills,

2007), which involves the identification of an area of focus, the development of an action

plan, related data collection, analysis and interpretation of this data, all in an interrelated and

cyclical process. (See Chapter Three for a more in-depth discussion of action research as a

research paradigm and its implications for this study).

1.4 Theoretical Framework for the Proposed Study

This study is informed by the National Science Education Standards that state

“inquiry using authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy

for teaching science” (National Research Council, 1996, p.31), underscoring the need for

educators to establish classroom environments that encourage student engagement in

scientific investigations. These Standards also define what meaningful science investigations

should involve, as well as the roles of students and educators in inquiry-based classrooms (as

discussed in more depth in Chapter Two). Therefore, the science demonstrations at the core

of the planned interventions were orchestrated to take place in the context of inquiry

investigations designed by the students and involving science process skills such as

generating research questions, formulating hypotheses, making observations, collecting data,

and forming conclusions that they could defend.

The overarching theoretical framework for this study is provided by constructivist

theory, the learning theory that has informed the development of the Science Standards. This

theory of learning is grounded in the notion that individuals construct meaning and

knowledge from their perception of prior experiences, which guide their perceptions of

present experiences (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994). More specifically,

7

Situated Cognition, which positions itself under the umbrella of constructivism, will serve as

the central theoretical framework for this study.

Situated Cognition considers knowledge as “inextricably a product of the activity and

situations” (Brown et al., 1989) in which it is produced. Not only are concepts situated by

the activity in which they are experienced, they are also individually developed and

constructed by, and with, those who engage in these experiences. Situated cognition theory

asserts that individuals will actively develop their own perceptive interpretations of

experiences and the objects found within them (Seel, 2001; Young, 1993). Any given

situation becomes a different meaningful experience for different individuals because of their

past experiences and resulting beliefs and values.

Conceptual Change theory offers some additional insights into the process of student

learning that have informed some key decisions made in the design of the intervention, and

also played a role in the data collection and analysis. According to Piaget (1964), intellectual

growth, or change, results from a disruption of cognitive equilibrium, established from a

conflict between incoming information and what already exists in an individual’s conceptual

framework. Resolution of this disequilibration results in a modification of existing

knowledge schemes, leading to learning. This is conceptual change. Pedagogical

approaches informed by a conceptual change model employ cognitive conflict -- in which an

individual’s current conceptual framework is challenged by an experience – as a stimulus for

learning. Such cognitive conflict is most often promoted through the use of anomalous data

– hence my decision to focus on science demonstrations that are designed around a

discrepant event.

1.5 Overview of the Research Design

8

The proposed study was motivated by the following overarching question: How can

demonstrations be designed so as to most effectively promote students’ engagement in

scientific inquiry? I explored this question using an action research study design centering

on an intervention that took place in the three sessions of the seventh grade Physical Science

course I was assigned to teach for the school year 2009-10.

More specifically, the design and study of the intervention was informed by the

following research questions:

1. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (a) how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’

interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

2. How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact: (a) how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’

interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

3. What are similarities and differences in (a) how students design, conduct and interpret

their own investigation around a scientific phenomenon; and (b) students’ interest in

learning about that scientific phenomenon in the following three scenarios: (i) students

develop their own investigation without a prior demonstration following an interactive

lecture, (ii) students develop their own investigation after a discrepant event

demonstration using POE, and (iii) students develop their own investigation after an

NOE demonstration using a discrepant event?

In order to address these research questions, I designed and implemented an intervention

(as described in detail in Chapter Three) where students in each section of my seventh grade

Physical Sciences course engaged in a sequence of three self-designed investigations around

9

a specific scientific concept; these investigations were once preceded by a discrepant event

demonstration using a Predict-Observe-Explain design (POE), once preceded by a discrepant

event occurring as a more spontaneous demonstration (referred to as a Naturally Occurring

Event, or NOE), and once did not involve any initial demonstration, but rather were preceded

by an interactive lecture (referred to as Lecture/Inquiry, or L/I). The three topics and

demonstrations chosen for this intervention are described below, and all took place in the

beginning of the course in Fall 2009.

• Unit #1:

• Key scientific concept: Density

• Demonstration: Floating/Sinking Pop Cans- Two pop cans, regular Coke and

Diet Coke, are placed into separate large beakers of water. The can of regular

Coke sinks to the bottom of the beaker while the Diet Coke floats at the surface.

• Unit #2:

• Key scientific concept: Molecular arrangement of gas particles

• Demonstration: Inverted Cup- A piece of paper towel is placed into a 1000 ml

beaker which is inverted and pushed into a 4000 ml beaker filled with water. The

inverted beaker is lifted out of the water, and the paper towel removed to show

that it is still dry.

• Unit #3:

• Key scientific concept: Cohesion

• Demonstration: Drops on Pennies- Water drops from an eyedropper are placed

onto a penny resting on a table. The drops continue to be placed one at a time,

until the water spills off the coin and onto the table.

10

In the case when no demonstration was used (L/I), students were given some initial

information about the topic under study in the form of an interactive lecture, where, as it is

my practice, I used some visual images (pictures or short videos), as well as engaged students

in making connections with their own life experiences. After either the interactive lecture, or

a POE or an NOE discrepant event demonstration (both of which were expected to create

cognitive conflict and thus stimulate curiosity and questions), students (in pairs) were asked

to design and conduct an investigation to help them explain the phenomenon under study.

This involved identifying potential variables that might affect outcomes, choosing a specific

variable and related research question they wanted to investigate, developing the protocol for

their investigation, conducting the investigation, interpreting the results and sharing what

they learned with the rest of the class. My role as the teacher in all three lesson designs was

to promote and encourage questions and reflection, and to develop structure in the classroom.

Therefore, I was essentially a facilitator, rather than a transmitter of knowledge.

In order to be able to compare students’ reaction to each scenario (i.e., student-designed

science investigation when preceded by (a) demonstration using POE, (b) NOE

demonstration and (c) interactive lecture around the same topic, I arranged for the three

sections of the course to alternate the instructional strategy used for each of the three topics –

as summarized in Table 1.1 below:

Table 1.1

Class #1 (1st class of the day) –Period 1

Class #2 (2nd class of the day) –Period 3

Class #3 (3rd class of the day) –Period 8

Unit #1 Density

POE demonstration + inquiry.

Lecture + Inquiry NOE demonstration + inquiry.

11

Unit #2 Molecular Arrangement of Gas

Lecture + Inquiry NOE demonstration + inquiry.

POE demonstration + inquiry.

Unit #3 Cohesion

NOE demonstration + inquiry.

POE demonstration + inquiry.

Lecture + Inquiry

Furthermore, to make the three scenarios comparable in terms of learning time, each unit

was developed over a total of two 80-minute class periods. A description of the planned

intervention is provided in Chapter Three, with additional planning documents available in

Appendices A and B; a detailed description of how some of these experiences actually played

out can be found at the beginning of Chapter Four.

To evaluate the impact of these different instructional designs on students’ interest, as

well as their investigations, the following set of data was collected (see Chapter Three for a

more in-depth discussion of each data source and Appendix B for specific data collection

tools):

• Audio-tapes of each lesson (transcribed in their entirety).

• Independent observer’s field notes” (limited to the actual demonstrations and including

the compilation of some charts – see Appendix B.3 – specifically designed to capture

individual students’ interest in the experience).

• Teachers’ log (consisting of field notes taken during each class session and reflections

recorded immediately after informed by some guiding questions- see Appendix B.4).

• Students’ written work (all the written work produced by each student/pair during each

unit- including their research questions, predictions, protocols for the investigation, and

students’ responses to specifically designed journal prompts [see Appendix B.1]).

• Audiotape of final class reflection (where each class was asked to reflect on the three

experiences and compare them; see Appendix B.2 for guiding questions).

12

• Audiotape of selected interviews with individual students (which took place after the final

class reflection to gather more in-depth data about students’ perceptions of the various

instructional designs).

This rich set of complementary data was analyzed using qualitative research techniques

to identify themes that helped me address each of the research questions – as described in

more detail in Chapter Three and Appendix C.1..

1.6 Preview of Key Findings and Contributions of the Study

Findings from this study provide valuable insights about the positive effects of using

discrepant event demonstrations in science instruction as a way to strengthen student-led

scientific investigation and increase students interest and engagement in learning science.

They also suggest that each lesson design investigated (POE, NOE, Lecture/Inquiry) has

value for students, although each influenced student engagement and scientific investigations

in specific ways. In particular, the manner in which demonstrations are presented in the POE

and NOE scenarios affected student engagement and learning outcomes. The study also

confirms the value of employing discrepant events as demonstrations in a science curriculum.

As such, findings from this study should encourage science teachers in the use of science

demonstrations in the context of inquiry-based units. The study also deepens and contributes

nuance to the existing research literature on the design and impact of science demonstrations,

especially as a means to launch into a student-led, inquiry-based investigation.

13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction and Overview

Developing a more nuanced understanding of the pedagogical potential of

demonstrations requires us to understand the unique role of context in learning, how learners

process information that does not correspond to their current understanding of the world, and

the ways in which demonstrations can affect learning. Thus, to ground this study we need to

look at several complementary bodies of work that shed light on these various dimensions.

This literature review is organized into five sections. In the first section, I report on

findings from research on Situated Cognition Theory and articulate how these findings, and

Brown et al.’s (1989) work in particular, establish compelling support to using Situated

Cognition Theory as the main theoretical framework for this study.

Conceptual Change Theory is discussed in the second section. Here I describe critical

features of conceptual change, and specific findings from empirical research on conceptual

change that have informed the study.

In the third section, I summarize the key elements of inquiry-based reform with

special attention to those features that informed the design of the intervention and data

analysis. I also explain the suitability, guidance, and support this pedagogical paradigm

provided to the design of the intervention.

The fourth section begins with a literature review of research on demonstrations as a

pedagogical tool in the science classroom. I present research findings about documented

desirable outcomes of demonstrations along with shortcomings of these approaches as

14

identified by some critiques. I also report more specifically on what we know about POE

demonstrations, one of the design features employed in my intervention.

The final section focuses on discrepant events, another feature directly relevant to the

design of my intervention. Here I review studies that addressed how discrepant events can be

best used to stimulate conceptual change and engagement.

2.2 Situated Cognition as the Main Theoretical Framework

Situated Cognition Theory lies at the heart of this study, as it provides the theoretical

framework to examine how students experience the science demonstrations and the outcomes

resulting from these demonstrations. Situated Cognition as a theory attempts to explain how

an individual’s observations, interactions, and perceptions of and with an environment lead to

learning (Brown et al., 1989; Seel, 2001). Brown et al. (1989) suggest that “by ignoring the

situated nature of cognition, education defeats its own goal of providing useable, robust

knowledge” (p. 32). Situated Cognition considers knowledge as “inextricably a product of

the activity and situations” in which it is produced (Brown et al., 1989) and regards

knowledge as a set of tools that can be used in new situations and can only be completely

understood through use. Using these tools involves an adoption of the culture in which they

are used and results in modifications of the users perceptions of the world. According to

Brown et al. (1989), through increased use concepts continue to develop. Cognition is

interdependent with the physical and social environment. At the foundation of Situated

Cognition are all the internal processes that transpire as individuals interact with their

environments. As such, in this study I will operationalize learning as the ability for an

individual to construct meaning from one’s environment.

15

Not only are concepts situated by the activity in which they are experienced, they are

also individually developed and constructed by, and with, those who engage in these

experiences. In this sense, situated cognition positions itself under the umbrella of

constructivism, grounded in the notion that individuals construct meaning and knowledge

from their perception of prior experiences, which guides their perceptions of present

experiences. Situated Cognition Theory asserts that individuals will actively develop their

own perceptive interpretations of experiences and the objects found within them (Seel, 2001;

Young, 1993). The dual focus on both the context and the individual’s perception of it is a

significant feature of Situated Cognition. Any given situation becomes a different

meaningful experience for different individuals because of their past experiences and

resulting beliefs and values. Furthermore, the interrelationships that develop between

individuals in a particular context are products of the way distinct backgrounds, beliefs and

values interact.

Situated Cognition relies heavily on the idea of cognitive apprenticeship, in which

students, acting as apprentices, are enculturated into a social community, its practices, and its

culture as they learn to use tools as practitioners within that community. Learning then is

seen as a continuous process that results from acting in various situations and must involve

the interdependent nexus of activity, tool, and culture. These entities are also key

components of this study.

The intervention at the core of this study involves students in demonstrations and

investigations that provide opportunities for revision and construction of a specific concept.

This is consistent with Brown et al.’s (1989) belief that “People who use tools actively rather

than just acquire them, by contrast, build an increasingly rich implicit understanding of the

16

world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves” (p. 33) and that concepts

continually develop as “new situations, negotiations, and activities inevitably recast it in a

new, more densely textured form” (p. 33).

There is a strong connection between Brown et al.’s (1989) representation of the

progression student’s encounter through cognitive apprenticeship (as illustrated in Figure 1)

and those that the students in this study experienced.

The first phase of the model in Figure 1 illustrates how apprenticeship, guided by

coaching, provides a scaffolding experience in preparation for an authentic activity. This

parallels the launch of two of the three lesson designs, where students exposed to a discrepant

event share their initial ideas, identify variables supported by the teacher, and ultimately

develop and implement an inquiry investigation as an “authentic activity”. Each step of this

process was scaffolded, as seen in Figure 1. The next phase of the model involves multiple

practices with collaboration. In this study, as students conduct their investigations, they

“move into a more autonomous phase of collaborative learning, where they begin to

participate consciously in the culture” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 39) as they acquire more

control and conduct their own investigations collaboratively with a partner. In the final

phase of the model, strategies and findings are articulated and reflected upon. Through class

discussion and reflection, students become participants in the culture and its social network

which, as Brown et al. (1989) reports, promotes enculturation through the development of the

17

cultures’ language and belief systems. Reflection of student experiences will result in

generality of concepts and understandings, “grounded in the students situated understanding”

(Brown et al., 1989, p. 39). The entire unit structure is scaffolded by the teacher and

students, from prediction, observation, explanation, class discussion, inquiry, and all the

processes involved in each.

The intervention at the core of this study also aimed at developing a learning

community engaged in collaborative, inquiry-based experiences, following Brown et al.’s

(1989) belief that through enculturation, individuals who practice in situ, observing behavior

of the cultures members, will begin to acquire the language, jargon and behavior of those

members. This means experiencing conceptual tools being used in authentic ways. This

includes teachers acting as practitioners who, in a science classroom, might model problem-

solving and views of the world through the lens of the scientific community- a type of

situated modeling. Young (1993) says that authentic situations must include the

identification of relevant information in tasks, engagement throughout the identification and

solving of problems, and collaboration. Each of these elements has informed the design of

the intervention. These cultural practices are defined as authentic activities, which although

informal “can be deeply informative- in a way that textbook examples and declarative

explanations are not” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34). As Brown et al. (1989) point out, learning

can result from “legitimate peripheral participation”, whereby individuals not directly

involved in an activity learn from observing salient features of the activity, and the behavior

and interrelationships of those individuals directly involved.

This study established students as members of a collaboratively developed culture-

with students generating their individual directions of problem solving, and forming

18

conclusions from collaborative discussion and reflection on their experiences. One of the

roles of class discussion was to demonstrate to students the “legitimacy of their implicit

knowledge and its availability as scaffolding in apparently unfamiliar tasks” (Brown et al.,

1989, p. 38).

The idea of cognitive apprenticeship is a main construct of Situated Cognition

Theory. The idea of enculturation embedded in cognitive apprenticeship has identifiable

characteristics shared by inquiry-based reform. Among them are the ideas of students as

active generators of problems and solutions, involving collaborative problem-solving,

reflective narrative, group discussion, and the recognition of misconceptions. As such, this

metacognitive awareness and the process itself become fundamental to enculturation. This

study was conducted in a classroom where learning is perceived as a process- a principle that

was explicitly defined in the first week of school and continued throughout the school year.

As a process, learning in this classroom did not focus on the memorization of terms and

ideas. Although I believe that an understanding of scientific terminology is important to

classroom discourse, the intervention I planned was informed by the goal of promoting

students’ development of individual meaning of the scientific technical terms that can be

confirmed and supported through exploration and discussion. This became part of the

enculturation of the classroom.

The physical science curriculum that I teach involves many conceptual topics at the

molecular and atomic level of matter. As Brown et al. (1989) point out, the epistemology

customarily guiding this type of curriculum, for me and many other educators, has

emphasized a fundamental focus on conceptual representation. However, “a theory of

situated cognition suggests that activity and perception are importantly and epistemologically

19

prior- at a nonconceptual level- to conceptualization” (p. 41). In this study, although

conceptual representations are critical, they are developed and mediated through individual

and collaborative activity and perception.

Young (1993) concludes that from a situated cognition perspective, it is necessary for

teachers to draw student’s attention to the meaningful features of a situation or problem.

Baddock and Bucat (2008) agree and conclude that along with being explicit, teachers should

be repetitive and dramatic, so that students can distinguish the important from the

unimportant information in the demonstration. Without this, the authors believe that

observations, existing knowledge and details of the demonstration might establish a cognitive

overload for students. Baddock and Bucat (2008) conclude that unless the teacher explicitly

points out the most significant information in a demonstration, it is difficult for students to

distinguish it. Without being provided a direction for what they are to learn from the

demonstration, students have difficulty separating noise from signal (Roth et. al, 1997; Roth

& Lucas, 1997). This study incorporated their suggestions to use “emphatic tones, dramatic

(even melodramatic) style at crucial moments, reminding students of their predictions,

pretending musing (aloud) to oneself, or even the use of a mock drum roll” (p. 1126).

2.3 Conceptual Change Theory

Conceptual Change Theory posits that learning occurs “against the background of the

learner’s current concepts” (Posner et al, 1982, p. 212) used to organize new experiences.

Essentially, conceptual change involves the reorganization of an “interrelated system of

beliefs” (Vosniadou et al, 2001, p. 394).

Conceptual Change Theory takes the position that students don’t simply acquire or

form new concepts, but rather they either modify those that already exist or replace an

20

existing concept with a new one. Introduced by Piaget (1964), accommodation is a process of

conceptual restructuring occurring through modification of existing knowledge. Essentially,

it occurs when students use existing concepts to understand new phenomena. On the other

hand, assimilation is the incorporation of new information into existing conceptions.

Piaget (1964) explains that learning can be stimulated when cognitive dissonance

occurs, or when an observer experiences a situation that contradicts expectation. The

resulting state of perplexity and doubt, called disequilibrium, plays a significant role by

stimulating curiosity and engaging the learner. The observer is compelled to seek

information that can explain the occurrence, due to the mental discomfort of two

simultaneously existing competing concepts.

Discrepant events have been identified as a valuable means of causing cognitive

conflict in students, as they represent a type of anomalous experience that compels students

to focus on prior conceptions, a necessary step for conceptual change (Pintrich, Marx &

Boyle, 1993). Even if no conceptual change results, anomalous data support at least the

initial steps towards conceptual change (Limon, 2001) by promoting reflection and initiating

awareness and self-recognition of ideas and assumptions (Limon & Carretero, 1997).

The critical conceptual change features are dissatisfaction, exploration of plausible

explanations, and selection of a fruitful one (Dykstra et al, 1992). This is precisely what

participants of this study experienced as part of the discrepant event demonstrations included

in the intervention. The discrepant event demonstrations were designed so that students

would encounter dissatisfaction during observation, explore plausible explanations through

their own investigations, and finally select a fruitful explanation through experience and

21

discussion. It was the intention of the study to operationalize cognitive conflict in students

through the discrepant event demonstrations.

2.4 Inquiry-Based Reform

A significant amount of research, as reported in the National Science Education

Standards (National Research Council, 1996), supports an inquiry-based approach to science

instruction. As the foundation for my study, it was imperative to learn more about how

demonstrations can help support inquiry experiences. The National Science Education

Standards define “full inquiry” as a process in which students:

1. pose a productive question;

2. design an investigation directed toward answering that question;

3. carry out the investigation, gathering the applicable data in the process;

4. interpret and document their findings;

5. publish or present their findings in an open forum.

The science investigations students engaged in as part of the intervention of this action

research study incorporated each of these traits, except for the last one due to a lack of time.

Traditional teaching methods typically attempt to present abstract concepts through

textbook descriptions and exercises. In this study, rather than reading about density or gas

particles in a class text, or passively watching a demonstration, students studied these

concepts and principles by actively engaging in specific experiences, immersed and

surrounded by a scientific culture and community. Students explored different phenomena

within the domain of a concept, reported and explained their experiences and findings

through class discussions, which led to the discovery of general principles together.

22

The science standards call for scientific inquiry that maintains a focus on student

generated questions and conclusions from student developed investigations involving

observation and reflection. Consistent with this charge, in the intervention I designed

students worked in cooperative groups and attempted to answer questions they generated

through their own investigations. They collected data, interpreted the information, and drew

conclusions based on their findings.

The literature contains extensive empirical support demonstrating that inquiry

conducted in the classroom leads to meaningful student learning (Anderson, Reder, & Simon,

1996). The literature also identifies certain features as characterizing quality scientific

investigation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Utilizing an inquiry-based approach, the

intervention at the core of this study incorporates these features and strategies in a number of

ways.

For purposes of this study, inquiry is operationalized as the ability to generate a

research question, design an investigation or protocol, make observations during the

investigation, and explain the results of the investigation in a summative conclusion, as

proposed by Chinn & Malhotra (2002). I feel that these four features lie at the foundation of

inquiry and are critical to a productive classroom inquiry experience. These are the features

of inquiry that I want my students to successfully engage in. Therefore, this study was

designed to evaluate the extent to which inquiry experiences resulting from three differently

designed lessons led to students’ investigations that reflected the central features of inquiry

mentioned above.

Chinn and Malhotra (2002) make the distinction between authentic scientific inquiry,

which most closely resembles research conducted by scientists, and simple inquiry tasks,

23

which may comprise very few if any elements of authentic inquiry. Each of these types of

experiences lie at opposite ends of a continuum, with classroom tasks situated at any point

within this range, dependent on their design. The goal for my classroom and this study was

to follow the tenets of authentic scientific inquiry, as much as possible within the constraints

of a classroom context. Each of the central features of inquiry identified in Chinn and

Malhotra’s (2002) study is explained in depth in what follows.

The first feature of inquiry identified by Chinn & Malhotra (2002) is the ability to

develop an appropriate research question, developed from a hypothesis or theory that

attempts to explain a specific phenomenon, or to imagine how the world works. In authentic

inquiry, the generation of a research question is done by the student, whereas in simple

inquiry the question is provided by the teacher. As the research question establishes the

direction of the entire investigation, it is critical that the question be a sound, investigable

one. The research question should be narrow; not broad-based. By suggesting what kinds of

evidence would help answer it, an investigable question directs the student toward a method

of data collection, leading to a protocol design. The intervention in this study aims to

examine whether different design elements in a lesson lead to differences in formulation of

research questions by students. For example: can students come up with a broader range of

questions? Is there a difference in the type of research questions they come up with? Do

students develop more questions that are testable or investigable? Is the question central to

the learning of the concept embedded in the demonstration?

The second feature of inquiry these authors identify is the ability to design a protocol

that is organized and focused on the research question. There are many facets involved in

designing a protocol/research design for an investigation. Three specific facets of protocol

24

design will be examined here. They are rigor, level of detail, and appropriateness to the

research question. It is vital for protocol techniques to always be rigorous and thorough. A

well-designed protocol will have one clearly identified variable, well-designed planned

measures, and a rich level of complexity, yet maintain a high level of clarity. Similar to the

research question, in authentic inquiry protocol design is constructed by students and merely

supplied by the teacher in simple inquiry, meaning this is also true for each of the three facets

mentioned above.

Whereas the variables in most simple inquiry tasks are perceptually salient (Chinn &

Malhotra, 2002), this was not the case in my interventions, due to the fact the demonstrations

were based on discrepant events. Variables in discrepant events are much less discernible,

which may lead to either an inability to identify them or misidentification. The source of this

misidentification can be a student’s misconception, a primary justification for the use of

conceptual change as one of the theoretical frameworks. Examining whether differently

designed lessons lead to differences in student developed investigation protocols will be

another goal of this study.

When students are told what to measure and what data to collect in simple inquiry,

they are fundamentally being told what to observe. When the research question and protocol

design are imposed on students in simple inquiry tasks, interest and engagement can be

affected, as well as “ownership” of results since it may seem “pre-planned”. One component

of engagement during inquiry is how students react when there is conflict, either between

what they thought was going to happen and what did happen, or between their ideas and

those of others. I noted this “level of engagement” throughout the three units.

25

The third feature of inquiry identified by Chinn & Malhotra (2002) is the ability to

observe the phenomenon in an investigation, make inferences, and analyze the data collected

during these observations. Scientific claims are validated or contradicted by observing the

phenomenon in an investigation. As a result, it is imperative that the observations be

meaningful and relevant to the question under investigation. In this study, equally important

to observations made during the inquiry are those made by students during the

demonstration, since they could lead directly to the development of a research question. It is

paramount that students be able to identify and focus on the key features of the

demonstration. Equally significant is that principles of logical reasoning are used to develop

explanations and conclusions from observations. This reasoning should make coherent,

intelligible connections between observation and explanation.

Ultimately, observations and measurements must be translated into data. Students

must first choose which data to gather and use, and whether their observations or data direct

them to collect additional data. One criterion for data is that it is efficiently organized in a

sound manner. The choice of data, its collection, and its subsequent interpretation should

aim to be objective and free of bias. Bias is seldom addressed in simple inquiry, but it is

directly considered in authentic inquiry. The protocol, interpretation of data, and theoretical

explanations should endure a rigorous critical review in order to safeguard against bias. The

questioning and critiquing of evidence, logic, and explanations are central tenets of science.

It is important for students to understand this review process, and to be aware of this role

when developing protocol, collecting and analyzing data and forming conclusions. Group

discussion and peer review will be a key component of the student investigations developed

26

in the intervention. Examining whether differently designed lessons lead to differences in

student-developed investigation protocols is another goal of this intervention.

Informed by these considerations, the fourth feature of inquiry I have considered is

the ability to draw conclusions from observed phenomenon and collected data. It is critical

that conclusions are coherent. Explanations need to be scientifically valid and consistent

with accepted scientific principles. Proposed explanations must be replicable and should be

based on evidence developed from observations. Evidence is at the foundation of scientific

inquiry- the cornerstone that supports concluding remarks and arguments. The methods in

which evidence is gathered, analyzed, and explained are critical to the integrity of the

investigation, giving weight to the four central features explored in this study. One goal of

this intervention will be to examine whether students’ conclusions demonstrate coherency,

drawn from strong connections to appropriate observations, and how this element is affected

by discrepant event demonstrations. Another attribute is a clear articulation of the central

concept. Do conclusions show evidence of a strong grasp of the central concept? This is

another question that is addressed in this study.

Palincsar (1989) suggests that, when Brown et al. (1989) speak about the

interdependent nature of activity, concept, and culture, they are advocating bridge-building,

in the sense that an individual can acquire the awareness and ability to translate and apply

knowledge learned in one situation to one that is distinctly novel. This capacity to generalize

will be examined in student- drawn conclusions. In today’s technological age, it is critical

for students to gain an appreciation for locating information, and knowing how to apply it.

For knowledge to be considered a tool (Brown et al., 1989) it must be amenable to various

27

situations (Young, 1993), a strength that may become apparent in journal entries and

interviews.

Each of these considerations drawn from the literature on authentic scientific inquiry

were used both in the design of the lessons comprising the intervention, and in the

development of rubrics to systematically evaluate the nature and quality of the student’s

investigations, as a part of the data analysis (see Appendices C.2-5).

2.5 Research on Demonstrations

The science demonstration is a widely used tool in science curricula at all grade levels

(Glasson, 1989). The design of a traditional science demonstration typically involves a

teacher or student performing an activity while the rest of the class observes (Milne &

Otieno, 2007) Research shows that demonstrations are essentially used by educators to

achieve three primary goals: the first is to illustrate or legitimize a concept, the second is to

promote student comprehension, and the third to increase student engagement in the

classroom (Beall, 1996; Candela, 1998; Manaf & Subramaniam, 2004; Morgan, Barroso, &

Simpson, 2007).

Research has shown that demonstrations in the chemistry classroom stretch students

“cognitive spectrum” through their ability to capture attention (Buncick, Betts, & Horgan,

2001), spark curiosity (Shepardson, Moje, & Kennard-McClelland, 1994), generate interest

(Callan, Crouch, Fagen, & Mazur, 2004), and develop higher level thinking skills, promoting

“functional understanding of various concepts” (Meyer et al., 2003, p. 432). Science

demonstrations have been shown to be effective in “capturing attention, igniting curiosity

and promoting functional understanding of various concepts” (Manaf & Subramaniam, 2004,

p. 1).

28

Others argue that science demonstrations promote active learning environments (Manaf

& Subramaniam, 2004) and can be an effective strategy for learning to occur when students

are actively involved, such as predicting and discussing observations (Furtak, 2009; Morgan

et al, 2007). Beasley (1982) reported by Fagen (2003) found that demonstrations increase

levels of student attention and task involvement leading to increased student learning and

understanding of intended concepts.

Both instructors and students have claimed to learn from demonstrations (Freier, 1981;

Hilton, 1981; Morgan et al, 2007). However, critics of traditional science demonstrations

maintain they are inadequate methods of instruction where students, as passive observers,

have difficulty grasping underlying concepts (Callan et al, 2004; Lynch & Zenchak, 2002;

Roth, McRobbie, Lucas & Boutonne, 1997) and are “less motivated to solve problems

independently” (Glasson, 1989, p. 129). These arguments are grounded in the belief that

demonstrations offer nothing more than momentary, attention-getting displays and, rather

than engaging students in true learning experiences, simply capture fleeting attention due to

their visual appeal. Thompson (1989) acknowledges that demonstrations are oftentimes

misused by science teachers who too often use these as “fun activities”, rather than

illustrations of concepts. Criticism has also labeled traditional science demonstrations as

inquiry stifling, charging they do not allow students to explore “what if” questions (Morgan

et al, 2007).

Roth et al. (1997) report that one reason students fail to learn from teacher

demonstrations designed with a traditional transmission approach to teaching is that they are

not provided opportunity to test their explanations. Shepardson et al. (1994) also conclude

that demonstrations should not be viewed as “an end in themselves, but should lead to the

29

testing of children’s ideas” (p. 255). Therefore, in the intervention at the core of this study,

student-designed inquiry experiences allow students to design and implement an

investigation in an effort to explain an observed discrepant event phenomenon.

Studies have investigated the effects of demonstrations as a means to increase student

attention and task involvement (Beasley, 1982); foster inclusivity (Buncick et al, 2001);

develop students’ critical thinking (Meyer et al, 2003); support students’ abilities to write

predictions, make observations and develop explanations (Shepardson et al, 1994; Furtak,

2009); and improve students’ test scores. Milne and Otieno (2007) claim, however, that

much of the research done on demonstrations examines learners understanding of specific

science content, rather than examining the structure or purpose of the demonstration as the

focus.

There is literature regarding variation in the strategies that educators can employ

during classroom demonstrations. They can be used as an introduction to a topic, as a wrap-

up, and as a tool throughout the class discussion of the topic. Demonstrations have also been

studied as a means to review, reinforce, and relate concepts. Morgan et al. (2007) found that

different types of learning outcomes are achieved in each of these situations.

In a Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) demonstration students are introduced to an

experimental scenario and are asked to predict what they think will happen. The teacher next

conducts the experiment while the students observe and record their observations. Finally,

students are asked to discuss their initial predictions, how they differ from the actual results,

and to explain their reasoning behind their predictions. The central tenet of this design lies in

its strategy to involve students actively in the demonstration experience by predicting what

30

will occur prior to the event, observing the event, and finally attempting to explain it,

verbally, in writing and through discourse.

The Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) strategy has been shown by research to be an

effective instructional tool that engages students and strengthens their understanding of

science concepts through the use of demonstrations (Furtak, 2009). The POE strategy

provides opportunities for students to demonstrate what they know and for misconceptions to

be identified.

2.6. Research on Discrepant Events

Consistent with a conceptual change paradigm, McDermott (2001) found that for

students to identify and correct misconceptions, student ideas need to be explicitly elicited,

students must be explicitly confronted with the errors involved in their thoughts, and students

must be provided the opportunity to address these ideas and errors (Crouch et al, 2004).

Consistent with these recommendations, all the demonstrations used in my intervention

involved discrepant events as a way to create cognitive dissonance and thus provide the

impetus for this kind of process.

As mentioned in Chapter One, Wright and Govindarajan (1995) define a discrepant

event as “a phenomenon that occurs in a way that seems to run contrary to initial reasoning”

(p. 25). Research has shown the most effective implementation of discrepant events involves

teachers who neither confirm nor deny students explanations, but rather guide the student

towards, and through, fruitful investigations to evaluate these explanations (Candela, 1998;

O’Brien, 1991).

Based on these considerations, each discrepant event used in this study was chosen to

reflect the following characteristics:

31

1. It could offer a counter-intuitive experience to what would be expected in a particular

situation. It presented an unexpected outcome, contrary to what would be predicted,

establishing cognitive conflict, or contradicting the observer’s existing cognitive

framework.

2. It was designed to engage and motivate the observer to want to know more,

investigate more, or at the very least, to want to continue to observe.

3. An explanation for the observed phenomena could not occur without further

investigation.

4. The experience would be categorized as surprising, startling, paradoxical, amazing,

puzzling, bewildering, confounding, strange, unusual, unreal, bizarre, shocking or

attention-grabbing.

32

CHAPTER 3

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

3.1.Introduction and Overview

This chapter will articulate the design of the study in detail, beginning with a discussion

of the key tenets of action research and their appropriateness for my study and research

questions. I will then present the context of the study, discuss my positionality as participant

and researcher, and describe participant recruitment and related issues. I will then revisit the

overall design of the study and the research questions informing it, building on the review of

the literature provided in Chapter Two to better articulate specific elements of the study

design. A thorough description of the plan for the intervention and its rationale follow. The

chapter concludes with a discussion of the data collection and analysis procedures used in the

study.

3.2. Action Research as the Chosen Methodology

As mentioned in Chapter One, this study followed Mills (2007) definition of action

research as “any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school

counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information

about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students

learn” (p. 5). Action research has also been defined as research conducted by “practitioners

using their own site… as the focus of their study” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007, p.2).

Since this study took place in my classroom, and was conducted by myself, it fit both of

these definitions.

Anderson and his colleagues also characterize action research as a reflective process

that is “deliberately and systematically undertaken and that some form of evidence be

33

presented to support assertions” (p. 2). These authors continue to describe action research as

an “ongoing series of cycles that involves moments of planning actions, acting, observing the

effects, and reflecting on one’s observations” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007, p. 3). In the

proposed study, data collected and analyzed from the first units allowed for modifications in

the design and implementation of subsequent units within the study. Throughout the

intervention in this study, these modifications included instructional strategies, physical

environment of the classroom, chosen demonstrations, and/or interview and written response

questions. This study also implemented an infusion approach, introducing “modest

interventions” (Buncick et al., 2001). Benefits to this type of approach include (a) an

emphasis on techniques rather than restructuring of course content, and (b) each technique or

activity can be introduced independently.

More specifically, this study employed Mills’ (2007) Dialectic Action Research

Spiral, as depicted in the figure below:

(from Mills, 2007, p.20)

Mills, ACTION RESEARCH, Figure 1-6, © 2007. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc.

34

Referred to as democratic validity/trustworthiness, Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen (2007)

believe that action research is seen as “an opportunity to make the voices of those who work

closest to the classroom heard” (p.7), including both practitioner and student. Similarly,

McCutcheon and Jung (1990) define action research as systematic, collaborative, critical and

self-reflective. All of the participants of this study, including observers and students, were

provided opportunities to offer thoughts and suggestions regarding their experiences.

3.3 Context of the Study and Participant Recruitment

The participants of this study consisted of a subset of the students of the three seventh

grade Physical Science classes that I taught in the 2009-2010 academic school year

(comprising a total of 47 students). All three of these classes were taught on the same school

day of a block schedule.

There were a total of 47 participants- 24 males and 23 females. This gender

composition reflected that of current student enrollment in the school, which was 51% male

and 49% female. Participants ranged between 11 and 14 years of age. The participants’

race/ethnicity was 11% Asian, 15% African-American, 6% Hispanic, 0% Native American,

and 68% Caucasian- quite similar to student enrollment in the school, which was

approximately 14% Asian, 6% African-American, 3% Hispanic, 0% Native American, and

76% Caucasian. For all participants, English was their primary language.

More specifically, period one consisted of 7 males and 10 females; 3 African-

American, 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic, and 12 Caucasian students. Period three consisted of 10

males and 6 females; 4 African-American, 1 Asian, 1 Hispanic, and 10 Caucasian students.

And period eight consisted of 7 males and 7 females; 3 Asian, 1 Hispanic, and 10 Caucasian

students.

35

I invited all students enrolled in the three Physical Science sections I taught to

participate in the study. There was no inclusion or exclusion from this study based on gender,

age, ability or ethnicity. One week prior to the beginning of the school year, I sent

permission letters to parents/guardians of all potential subjects. During the first class period

of the school year I discussed the nature and purpose of this study and requested students’

participation. Following parent permission, potential subjects of age 13 and 14 were asked to

read and sign an assent form, and a verbal script was provided and read by myself to those

potential subjects of age 11 and 12. After reading these documents to the students I

answered any questions asked at that time. Students were given one week to decide whether

they would participate in the study (i.e., regardless, they would have to fully participate in the

lessons which were part of the intervention as part of their science class, but if they chose not

to participate in the study I would not involve them in the interviews, nor would I use their

data in my analysis). I explicitly reminded students that choosing not to participate would, in

no way, affect other aspects of their participation in the course, including their grade.

Students were also told that they may choose to participate in this study without participating

in the interviews. Students were explicitly told that participation in this study was voluntary

and that they could cease participation at any time during the study without any impact on

their grades or status in the class. All students in periods three and eight chose to participate

in this study. In period one, five students chose not to participate. The demographics

previously reported did not include these five students. Audio-taping took place in order to

provide accurate data, but I removed any identifying material from final reports. All subjects’

names were replaced with pseudonyms in the reporting of any data from this study.

36

Consistent with an action research model, revisions and adaptations to the original

plan were made during the course of the intervention due to unexpected events. Before the

study began I realized there would be a lunch break between the two mornings and one

afternoon class. I was concerned about students talking to each other during lunch. In

particular, my concern was that the afternoon class might hear about an observed

demonstration from one of the morning classes. On the one hand, if there was discussion out

of the classroom it would demonstrate engagement, but on the other hand the advance

knowledge may influence student engagement. As a result, I told the students of the earlier

classes that it would be okay if they talked at lunch with their friends about the class

experience, but to not give away any details. They could say it was fun or interesting, if in

fact they thought it was, but that I didn’t want them to share any details of the class. I

explained that by sharing details with those who had not had class yet would spoil the

surprise and the fun.

3.4. Positionality of the Teacher/Researcher

As science department chair in my school, I am in a position of leadership with the

other two seventh grade Physical Science teachers. Together we have committed to modest

instructional innovations and analysis of them within our curriculum for the potential benefit

of our students interest and learning of science. This commitment is long-term and we

believe continues to build our understanding of science teaching and learning. Throughout

this study I was careful that my role as department chair did not negatively influence the

collaborative efforts characterizing action research.

I have taught the seventh grade Physical Science curriculum at this school district for

eleven years. As such, I brought my experience and knowledge of both the curriculum and

37

the student population to this study, influencing reflections, analyses and modifications to the

intervention throughout the study.

Although there were unique advantages in being both the researcher and the teacher

in this study, there were also potential conflicts resulting from the dual role. It is possible

that students may have felt pressured in some ways, since they observed me in both roles

throughout the study. It was also possible that students felt pressured from assignments, such

as from the journal entries, which were assigned points that affected their grades. This

situation was dealt with by reminding students several times, in written and oral form, that

their grades would not be affected in any way by their choice to participate, or not to

participate, in this study, and that they had the choice to opt out of the study without it

affecting their grades or status in the classroom.

3.5. Research Questions and Overview of the Study

In light of the information provided above about the context of the study and in

Chapter Two about relevant research, I can now provide more details on the design of the

proposed study and its rationale.

As stated in Chapter One, the ultimate goal of this study was to learn more about how

demonstrations could be designed so as to most effectively promote students’ engagement in

scientific inquiry. The choice of focusing on demonstrations as a potentially powerful

pedagogical tool to support student inquiry was motivated by the many research findings

documenting that science demonstrations can increase student interest and motivation to

learn more about a topic – and, thus, provide the catalyst for students to engage in authentic

inquiry. The choice of designing each demonstration around a discrepant event came from

recognizing that, as a discrepant event is likely to create cognitive conflict, it has not only the

38

potential to further increase students’ curiosity – and, thus, their willingness to engage in

inquiry – but could also provide the starting point for conceptual change. Finally,

recognizing that the effectiveness of science demonstrations could depend on specific design

elements, I was interested in exploring the implications of using the well-established POE

(Predict-Observe-Explain) model as well as introducing demonstrations in what appears to

the student to be a more “unplanned” way in response to their interests (what I have termed a

“naturally occurring event”- NOE).

To explore all of these variations, I planned an intervention involving all three

sections of the Physical Science course I taught in Fall 2009, where over the course of three

instructional units, students designed and executed an investigation around a specific topic

under three different scenarios: (a) the unit started with a discrepant event demonstration

including POE as a strategy; (b) the unit started with a demonstration, but using the NOE

model; (c) the unit started with the teacher introducing the topic and providing some

information and materials through an interactive lecture, but with no demonstration. Each of

the interventions designed for this study occurred after an initial unit where the students were

introduced to the process of scientific inquiry and where some classroom expectations and

practices related to scientific inquiry were developed.

The specific elements of this intervention as well as the data collection and analysis

procedures described in detail in the remaining sections of the chapter were designed so as to

enable me to address the following research questions using an action research approach:

1. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (a) how students

design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b)

students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

39

2. How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact: (a) how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’

interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study.

3. What are similarities and differences in (a) how students design, conduct and interpret

their own investigation around a scientific phenomenon; and (b) students’ interest in

learning about that scientific phenomenon in the following three scenarios: (i)

students develop their own investigation without a prior demonstration following an

interactive lecture, (ii) students develop their own investigation after a discrepant

event demonstration using POE, and (iii) students develop their own investigation

after an NOE demonstration using a discrepant event.

Before moving further with the detailed description of my plan for the intervention

and specific data collection tools, it will be helpful to further articulate what I mean by, and

how I decided to investigate “how students design, conduct and interpret their own

investigation” and “students’ interest in learning a topic,” respectively.

First, with respect to the first item, based on the research findings reported in Chapter

Two about effective science demonstrations as well as what effective student-directed

investigations should include, I was especially interested in examining the effects of using

discrepant events demonstrations, as well as a POE versus NOE design, on:

• The kinds of research questions the students generated as the possible starting point for

their scientific investigations, and how they came up with them; even more specifically, I

looked for:

40

1. Whether the numbers of research questions the students were able to generate

was influenced by whether or not they experienced a discrepant event

demonstration, and whether or not they engaged in explicit predictions.

2. Whether the content/quality of the research questions the students were able to

generate was influenced by whether or not they experienced a discrepant event

demonstration, and whether or not they engaged in explicit predictions. This

required rating the research questions generated by the students with respect to

(a) how “testable” or investigable the question was; (b) how central it was to

the concept studied in the unit or the potential to help students understand

some central aspects of the concept studied in the unit; and (c) the suitability of

the prediction (see Appendix C.2 for the rubrics I generated to systematically

evaluate each of these elements).

3. Whether the students perceived that it was easier to come up with research

questions when (a) they experienced a discrepant event demonstration, and (b)

engaged in explicit predictions, and if so why.

• The kinds of protocol/research design the students created for their scientific

investigations, and what affected their design decisions; even more specifically, I was

looking for:

1. Whether the content/quality of the protocol/research design the students were

able to create was influenced by whether or not they experienced a discrepant

event demonstration, and whether or not they engaged in explicit predictions;

this required rating the students’ protocols with respect to identification of

important dimensions including: (a) rigor; (b) level/attention of detail; (c)

41

appropriateness for investigating the research question chosen (see Appendix

C.3 for the rubrics I generated to systematically evaluate each of these

elements).

• The kinds of observations/data analysis the students engaged in as they implemented their

scientific investigations, and what affected them; even more specifically, I was looking

for:

1. Whether the content/quality of the students’ observations/data analysis was

influenced by whether or not they experienced a discrepant event

demonstration, and whether or not they engaged in explicit predictions; this

required rating the students’ observations/data analysis with respect to the

identification of important dimensions including: (a) centrality of data

collection to the research question; (b) data collection rigor; (c) detail of

observations (see Appendix C.4 for the rubrics I generated to systematically

evaluate each of these elements).

2. How students responded/reacted to what appears to be conflicting information.

• The kinds of conclusions the students reached at the end of their scientific investigations,

and what affected them; even more specifically, I was looking for:

1. Whether the content/quality of the conclusions the students reached at the end

of their investigation was influenced by whether or not they experienced a

discrepant event demonstration, and whether or not they engaged in explicit

predictions; this required rating the students’ conclusions with respect to the

identification of important dimensions including: (a) level of coherence; (b)

appropriate generalizations formed from the data; and (c) articulation of clear

42

understanding for the central concept in the unit (see Appendix C.5 for the

rubrics I generated to systematically evaluate each of these elements).

Although rubrics were developed for generalizations made by students in their

conclusions, time did not allow for a discussion of it in any of the classes involved in this

study. Therefore, I did not include an analysis of the findings with respect to generalizations.

With respect to “students’ interest in learning about the topic,” I was looking for

evidence in a number of different sources, including:

1. Individual students’ behavior in class activities indicating curiosity or interest -

as shown in their verbal participation in class discussion, level of sustained

attention in specific class activities, time committed to their investigation,

range of approaches attempted, making spontaneous guesses about the

discrepant event, wanting to try the demonstration themselves, wanting to

continue to investigate the discrepant event rather than move on to a new topic,

etc.

2. Individual students’ behavior outside of class time indicating curiosity or

interest- as shown by asking me questions about the phenomenon/topic after

class, doing some additional research on their own afterschool, talking about

the experience at home or with friends, spontaneously repeating the

demonstration with family or friends.

3. Individual students’ explicit reports about the curiosity or interest generated by

the discrepant event and/or investigations that follow.

3.6. Curricular Context

43

As previously noted, prior to the intervention all participating students engaged in an

initial inquiry experience, designed to establish common expectations and introduce a

number of practices that were used consistently throughout the intervention. In this initial

inquiry experience, students were asked to predict what would happen when a sugar cube

was dropped in a beaker of water. Each student was asked to record and report observations,

to identify a variable that could be investigated, and to develop a research question that could

be used to further investigate the observed phenomenon. With a partner, they conducted

their proposed investigations and developed conclusions from their lab experience.

This particular experience was chosen for its simplistic nature in an effort to allow

more focus on the process rather than the content. Since students encountered the same

format through each of the investigations conducted as part of the interventions, this initial

unit established their familiarity and comfort with these processes.

3.7. Detailed Plan for the Intervention

As explained in the previous section, the intervention was designed to provide the

opportunity for each of the three sections of the Physical Science course I taught to

experience three alternative design options to provide the catalyst for student-designed

scientific investigations: (i) students developed their own investigation without a prior

demonstration, following an interactive lecture (Lecture/Inquiry or L/I), (ii) students

developed their own investigation after a discrepant event demonstration using POE, and (iii)

students developed their own investigation after a “spontaneous” discrepant event

demonstration (NOE). More specifically, the intervention involved three different units, so

as to give each class an opportunity to experience and compare all three instructional designs;

and for each unit, a different instructional model was used in each class, so as to better

44

compare the effects of these different models on students’ interest and engagement in

inquiry.

Given the contents and instructional goals my district has associated to this course

(see curriculum map reported in Appendix A.1), I chose as the focus of the three units the

three scientific concepts and related discrepant event demonstrations reported in Table 3.1

below:

Table 3.1- Scientific concept and discrepant event demonstration to be implemented

Unit Key scientific concept

Discrepant event demonstration

#1 Density Floating/Sinking Pop Cans

#2 Molecular arrangement of a gas

Inverted cup

#3 Cohesion Drops on a penny

A description of the demonstrations at the core of each of the three units and the

materials required for the student inquiry that follows is provided below.

Unit 1 Demonstration

The “Floating/Sinking Pop Cans” demonstration was used to present the principle of

density. Two pop cans, regular Coke and Diet Coke, are placed into two separate large

beakers filled with water. The density of a substance is defined by g/cm3. The density of

water is 1.0 g/ml. Any substance with a density less than that will float, and more than that

will sink. The can of regular Coke sinks to the bottom of the beaker while the Diet Coke

floats at the surface of the water. The regular Coke contains more sugar than the Diet Coke

and, as a result, the mass of the regular Coke can is greater than the Diet Coke can. Since the

45

two cans are of equal volume, one can conclude that the regular Coke has a greater density

than the Diet Coke can. Furthermore, the Diet Coke can has a density less than water, and the

regular Coke has a density greater than water, causing it to sink in the beaker.

Materials required for the demonstration and available for the students’

investigations: Can of regular Coke, can of Diet Coke, water, 2- 4000 ml beakers; various

materials as requested by students to create density columns, including various size cups and

beakers, graduated cylinders, raisins, grapes, pennies, pebbles, uncooked pasta, and various

liquids including vegetable oil, syrup, honey, dishwashing liquid, food coloring, and solutes

such as sugar and salt.

Unit 2 Demonstration

The “Inverted Cup” demonstration was used to present the molecular arrangement of

gas particles. A paper towel is placed into a 1000 ml beaker, which is inverted and pushed

into a 4000 ml beaker filled with water. The inverted beaker is then lifted out of the water,

and the paper towel removed to show that it is still dry. This occurs because air occupies

space, and air and water cannot occupy the same space. As long as the cup is held straight

down, the air in the inverted cup is trapped and prevents water from entering.

Materials: 1000 ml beaker, 4000 ml beaker, water, paper towel; various sizes and

shapes of cups as requested by students, various materials requested by students, which may

include food coloring, test tubes, rubber stoppers, salt, sugar, sponges, etc.

Unit 3 Demonstration

The “Drops on a Penny” demonstration was used to present the principle of cohesion.

Water drops from an eyedropper are placed onto a penny, resting on a table. The drops are

continued to be placed one at a time, until the water spills off the coin and onto the table.

46

Typically, thirty to fifty drops of water can be placed onto the penny before any spills over

the edge. The charges within water molecules cause them to be attracted to each other. This

attractive force, called cohesion, causes the water molecules to form a large bubble on the

coin.

Materials: pennies, eyedroppers, water; various coins as requested by students,

various liquids as requested by students.

Each unit comprised of two 80 minute blocks, for a total of 160 minutes of

instruction. Within this time frame, each of the three class period experienced a different

instructional design for each of the three experiences, as summarized in Table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2- Format of the three instructional designs studied Class #1

(1st class of the day)- Period 1

Class #2 (2nd class of the day)- Period 3

Class #3 (3rd class of the day)- Period 8

Unit #1- Density POE demonstration + inquiry.

Lecture + Inquiry NOE demonstration + inquiry.

Unit #2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

Lecture + Inquiry NOE demonstration + inquiry.

POE demonstration + inquiry.

Unit #3- Cohesion NOE demonstration + inquiry.

POE demonstration + inquiry.

Lecture + Inquiry

These are the major differences between the three alternative instructional designs:

1. In a Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) discrepant event demonstration, students are

introduced to an experimental scenario and are asked to predict what they think will

happen. Then the teacher conducts the experiment while the students observe and

record their observations. Students are then asked to discuss their initial predictions,

47

how they differ from the actual results, and to explain their reasoning behind their

predictions. The demonstration is pre-arranged and the students are aware of this.

2. In a “Naturally Occurring Experience” (NOE) presentation the demonstration does

not appear to the student to be pre-arranged. At the beginning of class, students have

the opportunity to observe an event that is either already set up in the classroom, or is

being inadvertently manipulated by the teacher, without focus being specifically

drawn to it. The intent is for the students to inquire about the physical scenario and

want to know more about it. Although the students are told that the materials are for

a different class, they can observe and experience the presentation and the ensuing

activity due to their interest in it. If students do not ask to engage in activities during

the NOE, I would ask if they are interested in pursuing it “because there is time”.

3. When no demonstration is scheduled, the class begins with an interactive lecture

involving an explanation and a definition of the concept under investigation, plus

class discussion where students are asked to make connections with prior life

experience- an approach I typically use in my classes when introducing a new

concept. In the remainder of the unit, the students engage in an investigation of their

own design on the concept under study, following the same design in all three

models.

Table 3.3, below, is a summary of the intervention:

Table 3.3- Daily agenda for each lesson design

Lesson Day of Unit POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry (L/I- no demo)

48

Day One: Period One (First 40 minutes of the block)

Students will predict, observe, and explain the demonstration.

Opening comments to class. Students observe discrepant event, discuss it and try to explain.

The scenario and the concept to be investigated are explained and discussed through an interactive lecture.

Day One: Period Two (Second 40 minutes of the block)

Students design their investigation. Students complete journal entry.

Students design their investigation. Students complete journal entry.

Students design their investigation. Students complete journal entry.

Day Two: Period One (First 40 minutes of the block)

Students conduct their investigations.

Students conduct their investigations.

Students conduct their investigations.

Day Two: Period Two (Second 40 minutes of the block)

Students discuss results with partners. Through class discussion, students share out results and defend conclusions. Class critiques. Students complete journal entry.

Students discuss results with partners. Through class discussion, students share out results and defend conclusions. Class critiques. Students complete journal entry.

Students discuss results with partners. Through class discussion, students share out results and defend conclusions. Class critiques. Students complete journal entry.

Final Class Reflection- one block (one time only after all three units have been completed)

Class discussion. Students complete final journal entry.

Class discussion. Students complete final journal entry.

Class discussion. Students complete final journal entry.

As noted in the table above, I intended to have the students share their results and

defend conclusions through a class discussion. However, due to a lack of time in this study,

this did not occur. After the last unit was completed, each of the three classes engaged in a

class discussion in which students reflected on and compared their experiences in each of the

three units (see Appendix B.2 for a list of guiding questions). They also completed a final

journal entry (using specific prompts from Appendix B.2).

49

The study occurred within the months of September to November, 2009. A detailed

lesson plan of Unit 1, including each variation within that unit, follows. A similar lesson

plan was also prepared for Unit 2 and Unit 3, but given the similarities among the three plans

I have chosen not to repeat them here, but rather to include them in Appendix A.2 and A.3,

respectively.

Detailed Plan for Unit 1

Unit 1 POE Demonstration Lesson

Day One: Period One

Students each have a laptop on their desks. Students are shown two large beakers of

water and two cans of pop, one regular Coke and one Diet Coke. Students are asked to

predict what will happen when the cans are individually placed into the separate beakers.

They individually make their predictions by typing it into their reflective journals, and are

asked to type an explanation, or justification, for their prediction (see Appendix B.1 for

specific prompts). Student volunteers are asked to verbally share their predictions with the

class. The teacher lists students’ predictions on easel paper in front of the class. Students are

then directed to observe the demonstration. The cans are placed into separate beakers.

Students are asked to list observations in their reflective journals. Students are asked the

following question:

How do you think it is possible that these pop cans reacted differently when placed in

water?

Day One: Period Two

Students type their answers to this question into their laptops. Students then pair up

with a classmate by freely selecting a playing card from a deck of cards, each with a students

50

name from the class written on it. The students name written on their randomly chosen card

is their assigned partner. They are asked to share and discuss their explanations of the

demonstration with their partner. They are given the opportunity to modify their answers and

explanations and to enter their new ideas into their journals. If students do not want to

change their initial explanation, they are instructed to type that response. Now groups are

asked to share their explanations with the class. If the group’s explanation is the same for

both partners, then one student presents the explanation. If their explanations differ, they are

asked to individually present their explanations. I record key words or phrases used in these

explanations on easel paper. Students once again are given the opportunity to modify their

answers and explanations and to type them. If students do not want to change their initial

explanation, they are instructed to type that response in their journal. Students are then asked

to individually type as many research questions as they can think of to investigate the

observed phenomenon and to identify any variables that they believe might affect the

outcome of the demonstration. Class discussion prompts include “what if…” and “I

wonder…” questions. The entire class is given the opportunity to engage in discussion of

these questions. I ask for student answers and from these responses a list of relevant

variables are generated that I record on easel paper. Partners then discuss the list of

variables, collaboratively choose one to investigate, and type a research question that their

investigation attempted to answer. Partners then list the materials they need, and determine

what information and data they need to collect in order to conduct their investigation. Each

group is asked to share with the large group the question they are trying to answer, the

variable they are investigating, and a list of necessary materials. Groups are asked to write a

procedure, or protocol, for their investigation and type it into their journal entry. Each

51

student individually types their predictions of the results of their designed investigations. My

role is to facilitate students in the planning and strategies necessary to conduct their inquiry,

and to help identify potentially impractical or problematic issues. Possible prompts include

whether the outcome is affected by using different liquids, colored liquids, different

containers, varying temperatures of liquids, various objects to place into the liquid, solutes

dissolved in the liquids, and volumes of liquids. Students complete a journal entry (see

Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). I gather any additional materials needed, based on

students questions, before class on day two.

Day Two: Period One

The class begins with a repeat of the demonstration in order to further stimulate

thought for the demonstration, as well as for those students who may have missed class on

the first day. (I actually did not follow up with this item in the intervention because of the

time required to address research question development from day one). Students then

conduct the investigation that they designed on day one.

Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual

laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the

class. Students are then asked to complete and submit a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for

specific prompts).

Unit 1 NOE Demonstration Lesson

Day One: Period One

When students enter the classroom and take their seats, there are two 4000 ml beakers

filled with water on the desk at the front of the room. There is a pop can in each; one floating

52

and the other sinking. When attention is drawn to it, students are told that it is from an

experience in the previous class. If the students show interest in experiencing this lesson, I

agree to it. If the students did not ask to pursue this lesson, I ask them if they are interested

in doing it, since “we have time”. The goal is to eventually ask students the following

question regarding the observed phenomenon:

How do you think it is possible that these pop cans reacted differently when placed in

water?

Day One: Period Two

Students design an investigation, following a procedure similar to the one for the POE

unit. Students complete a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). I gather

any additional materials needed, based on students questions, before class on day two.

Day Two: Period One

Same as POE.

Day Two: Period Two

Same as POE.

Unit 1 Lecture/Inquiry

Day One: Period One

When students enter the classroom, they each have a laptop at their desks. The lesson

follows my typical lecture format. I begin by informing students that the concept under

investigation is density, which is introduced with a definition of the concept, followed by

video and brief notes. The five minute video was an introduction to the concept of density,

involving illustrations of objects and representation of the molecular makeup that composes

their density. The notes are in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. They begin with a

53

picture of an iceberg. This is followed by a definition of density, the formula used to

calculate density, and the relationship of an objects density to their ability to float in water.

Students are asked to describe, through class discussion, any real-world examples or personal

experiences involving the concept of density. The class discussion is directed specifically

towards experiences and explanations involving various sized objects and their capacity to

sink or float in liquid. Students are told the objective is for them to develop their own

investigation in order to deepen their understanding of the concept of density. In particular,

students are asked to design an experiment to help explain how objects of various sizes are

capable of floating and sinking, and to use the class introduction, notes and discussion as a

foundation for their experiments.

Day One: Period Two

Students develop research questions, variables, and investigations similar to what was

done in the POE and NOE classes. Students complete a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for

specific prompts). I gather any additional materials needed, based on students questions,

before class on day two.

Day Two: Period One

Students conduct the investigation that they developed on day one.

Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual

laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the

class. Students are then asked to complete and submit a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for

specific prompts).

Final Class Reflection

54

Soon after the completion of all three units, students engaged in a culminating class

discussion in which they reflected on their experiences from each of the lessons. In the

second part of this class block students individually answered questions (see Appendix B.2)

by typing on individual laptops into a final journal entry. The class discussion and follow-up

journal entry focused on a comparison of the lesson designs employed. Since lesson

transcripts and observations only identified those students who expressed themselves in ways

that could only be seen or heard, the culminating journal entry allowed me to “hear” from all

students. The demonstration props from each unit were visibly displayed during this final

class for student recall and reference, and to refresh student’s memories of their experiences

in the three units.

3.8. Data Collection Plan

Throughout the intervention I collected the following complementary data in order to

address my research questions (as articulated earlier in section 3.5).

3.8.1 Classroom Transcripts (three units per class)

Each lesson, for each of the three units, was audio recorded to capture students’

engagement and reactions to the various demonstration designs. This included the

introduction of the demonstration, the class discussion following it, and the co-construction

of the inquiry question, but not the small group work.

3.8.2 Reflective Journals

Laptop computers were available for each student to type in entries in their reflective

journals. This work was saved to a designated folder, serving as artifacts to be used for later

analysis and reference. As described in the lesson plan, specific journal prompts were

provided at specific points of each lesson (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts).

55

It is important to note that as well as a valuable data source, student responses written

in reflective journals were an integral part of the inquiry experience. The reflective journals

acted as opportunities for students to build their learning of investigative techniques, and of a

particular concept, as well as opportunities for students to develop the investigation itself in a

progressive, systematic way. Coupled with discussion, their journal responses provided

metacognitive opportunities for students to reflect on their own thought process. At the end

of the lesson, they helped students to reflect on how the lesson affected their understanding

and learning of science and the particular concept at hand. For the teacher, these reflective

journals offered formative assessment tools throughout the process and summative tools at

the end of each unit, as student reflections provided a comprehensive collection of

experiences.

3.8.3 Other Student Work

I collected all the other written work provided by the students in class, including

sketches and protocols/research designs that students had created and shared, and all chart

paper notes recorded during class discussions. As noted in Chapter 2, diagrams or sketches

that students created can be helpful models to clarify aspects of scientific explanations that

are not apparent when orally explained.

3.8.4 Teacher Log

At the end of each day of the intervention lessons, I wrote personal notes in a journal

as a way to record a “teacher’s perspective” on these experiences. These notes included

important decisions made in the planning and/or execution of these lessons, my observations

about students’ reactions to the experiences, suggestions for future presentations, and

anything else that seemed relevant to record, to ensure a systematic process. I had prepared

56

some guiding prompts (see Appendix B.4), which I answered as appropriate each time I

wrote in this log.

3.8.5 Observer’s Charts

In each unit, the initial demonstrations/lecture was also observed by a doctoral

candidate within my cohort, who for each class also completed the observation chart included

as Appendix B.3. Student’s non-verbal body movements are telling ways to identify

engagement and this observer helped recognize these indicators during the lesson, when I

was not able to do so because my attention needed to be focused on doing the demonstration

or lecture. Throughout the demonstration or lecture, the observer marked on the chart any

student who showed evidence of engagement/interest (as identified at the top of the chart

reported in Appendix B.3), so as to provide a qualitative and easily comparable measure of

students’ responses to the different instructional designs employed. The observer’s presence

at each of the demonstrations/lectures established a consistency that provided a richer

comparison of the three models.

3.8.6 Transcripts of Final Class Reflection

The final class reflection that took place in each of the three course sections was

audio-recorded and fully transcribed by me, using pseudonyms for each of the students (see

Appendix B.2 for the guiding questions I used to facilitate this discussion). Following this

class discussion, students completed a final journal entry.

3.8.7 Transcripts of Semi-Structured Interviews

Three students from each of the three course sections that I taught were selected and

invited to participate in an interview, which took place after school, following the final class

reflection (see Appendix B.5 for questions asked). These particular students were selected

57

because I thought their final class reflection comments were particularly thoughtful and

insightful. These interviews were fully transcribed, using pseudonyms.

3.9. Data Analysis

As typical in an action research study, analysis of the data was an ongoing process

that started as soon as the data was collected. On the first day of each unit, I examined and

rated the journal entry responses according to the rubrics I had developed (as reported in

Appendices C.2-3). These responses indicated to me how I would begin the second day of

the unit in each class. For example, in analyzing the student’s research questions written on

the first day of Unit 1 I noticed that more focus and direction was required in order for

potentially fruitful investigations to occur. I was able to identify particular difficulties that

students were having and was able to address them through class discussion. Similarly, I

examined and rated journal entries after day 2 using the rubrics reported in Appendices C.4

and C.5. Analysis and rating of conclusions and observations written in student journal

entries on day two of Unit 1 also allowed me to identify challenges that students were

having. These challenges were addressed at the beginning of day two in Unit 2. Finally,

after each unit I reviewed the notes from my daily teachers log and independent observer’s

charts and notes, which oftentimes provided insights that resulted in minor modifications in

the way I would address the class, or in the identification of activities that I would want to be

more attentive of in the following class.

Once the intervention was completed, I transcribed all audiotapes, including the final

class reflection, and individual student interviews. Transcriptions of classroom lessons, final

class reflection and student interviews were analyzed to address individual research

questions, following the procedures articulated in detail in Appendix C.1. I created Excel

58

spreadsheets in order to organize and further analyze the quantitative data (such as, my rating

of the quality of students’ research question, protocols, etc). Comparisons were continuously

made between the various data sources mentioned, both within and across each of the units.

Throughout this process, credibility was addressed through the triangulation of data

sources, including class audiotapes, final class reflection audio tapes, student interviews, my

researcher journal, the independent observer notes and charts, the notes recorded on easel

paper for each class, and students’ journal entry responses. In addition, a colleague scored

the journal entry responses from one class for one unit (representing approximately 11% of

the collected data from the study). This colleague was familiar with the material and the

developmental level of the students, and I discussed with her the interpretation of each of the

rubrics in Appendix C prior to her rating. The resulting rating scores were compared to my

rating scores for the same class and unit. Analysis of this data revealed that we had 88% of

agreement.

59

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction and overview

This chapter consists of three main sections. It begins with an account of how each of

the three instructional designs played out in the intervention, by presenting a detailed

narrative account of Unit 1 for each type of design (i.e., POE, NOE and L/I). These

accounts serve to ground the summary of findings that follow and act as a reference

throughout the discussion of these findings. The second section provides a presentation

of key findings specific to the three research questions informing this study. In the final

section, I discuss these findings and their main contributions.

4.2 Narrative account of how the three instructional designs played out

What follows is the detailed description of how Unit 1 played out in each of the three

scenarios- POE, Lecture/Inquiry, and NOE. It is important to note that the instructional

vignettes reported here are quite representative of what happened in the other three Units,

although the content was obviously different. It is also important to note that there was

only enough time for class discussion of conclusions for all three lesson designs in Unit

Three.

4.2.1 Students develop an investigation following a discrepant event using POE

Unit 1, Day 1

When students came into the classroom they were instructed to get a laptop from the

computer cart, take it to their desk and login. On this particular day it took twenty-one

minutes to begin the actual lesson, due to battery and login issues with the laptops.

60

I began this class by explaining to students that they will be asked to answer some

questions about a demonstration they will be observing, based on the next concept that we’ll

be studying. Students began to login to the journal entry. The first question, which asked

students to predict the outcome of the demonstration, was read together. I explained that

before actually doing the demonstration I would describe what will happen. I showed two

large beakers and two pop cans. I pointed out that one of the pop cans was regular soda and

the other was diet. Students were told that I would be filling the two beakers with water from

the sink and that I would place each of the cans into a separate beaker. I filled the beakers

with water in front of them. There were immediate questions asked. I did not wish to engage

in class discussion at this point, but these were legitimate questions that one might ask when

attempting to predict the outcome of this event.

Alicia: Are you filling those both with warm water?

Teacher: Why do you ask?

Alicia: Because maybe if it was warm or cold it might make a difference.

Zeke: Will there be the same amount of water in each beaker? (transcript,

9/29/10)

I answered these questions as I finished filling the beakers with water. With the

water-filled beakers in place on a demonstration table in front of the class, and the pop cans

at their sides, students were instructed to type what they thought would happen when the cans

were placed into the water. After one minute had elapsed, all predictions had been typed. A

student excitedly asked if predictions could be shared aloud to the class. I agreed to this and

presented this offer to anyone who wished to do so. Without hesitation, several hands were

raised and predictions were verbalized.

61

Carrie: Water will rise because the cans will take up space.

Alicia: The cans will float because it is a liquid inside a solid.

Zeke: The cans will sink because I saw it happen in a cooler at a picnic. (transcript,

9/29/09)

The cans were lowered into the water. The regular soda sank to the bottom of the

beaker and the diet soda floated at the top. Two students yelled out, “I was right”. Other

than this outburst, there were no visual indications of shock, surprise or excitement from

students. I instructed students to move onto the next question, which asked them to list the

important observations from the event. They were then told that the next question would ask

them to explain what they had seen. I added that they should “try to answer scientifically”,

that is using science as a means to explain their observations. Altogether, students spent five

minutes typing their observations and explanations. Fourteen minutes after the

demonstration began students had completed typing explanations into their journal entries. I

began to randomly assign each student to a partner, who they sat next to for the duration of

the class. The bell rang signifying the end of the first forty minute period.

The independent observer marked on his chart that 59% of the class exhibited

observable engagement (see Appendix D.13) during this first part of the class.

Students were then asked to individually answer the next question in their journal

entry, in which they rated their interest level in the phenomenon observed, on a scale of 1-5

(see Appendix B.1). Before answering the question we had a discussion about the meaning

of the word “phenomenon”, used in the journal entry question. With a 1 representing no

interest and a 5 representing the highest level of interest, the data shows 50% of the class

rated their interest in the 4-5 range (see Appendix D.14).

62

I now challenged students to design a research question intended to more deeply

investigate the observed demonstration.

Teacher: What kind of investigation do you think you could conduct that would help

you more deeply understand what is going on here (pointing to the demonstration with pop

cans still in the water). What kind of experiments could you do to help answer questions that

you might have about this? (again, pointing to the demonstration).

Sohan: What if there was Sprite in one beaker and Coke in the other?

Cassie: Would the same thing happen if you used bottles instead of cans?

Paul: What if we use hot water? (transcript, 9/29/09)

As questions were generated I wrote them down on easel paper hanging in front of the

classroom.

Teacher: These are great questions. You’ll notice that many of you are changing

things to test what happens here (pointing to the demonstration). Do you know what

you call that? What do you call the thing that you change in an experiment…

Jake: Variable! (transcript, 9/29/09)

This led to a definition and brief discussion of what a variable is and what qualifies it as an

appropriate variable, described as a feature that would have the potential to “productively”

lead to a deeper understanding of the observed phenomenon, or the concept, through

investigation.

Teacher: What are some other kinds of things that we could change to test the

outcome or the result of this? (transcript, 9/29/09)

Students did not seem to have difficulty coming up with variables. Several more were

shouted out as I listed them on easel paper. There was not a lot of prompting or leading for

63

variables in this class. A couple of inappropriate suggestions were made. For example,

Shana suggested using “a tissue and a washcloth”. This provided the opportunity for a brief

discussion on features that made these suggestions less than appropriate and how they could

be reworked into more scientifically appropriate choices.

A stream of appropriate variables was rapidly shouted out. The final list compiled on

easel paper included: different size beakers, container with a hole, containers with different

size holes, objects compared to those same objects in vials, salt water, sugar water, dropping

cans from different heights, different types of balls instead of cans, different brands of

pencils, and different size apples.

The entire discussion of research questions and variables took 22 minutes. I then

asked students to individually write as many research questions as possible to investigate the

observed phenomenon in the demonstration, specifically how objects float and sink in liquid.

Teacher: Okay, after having this discussion, now I want you to make a real research

question. Jot down as many as you can. You can use one of these on the board if you

came up with them, but I want you to try to use your imagination. Be creative. It

does not have to be anything that we’ve discussed. It can be about them, but try to

come up with something on your own. (transcript, 9/29/09)

In this unit, students spent four minutes typing research questions. While most

research questions proposed seemed productive, insofar as they could lead to doable and

valuable investigations, a few were not. Here are two examples of research questions

deemed inappropriate:

What will happen if you put a crumpled up piece of paper in very hot water

and then a crumpled up tissue in very cold water? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

64

How long can a chocolate cookie float compared to a chocolate chip cookie?

(Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

A complete list of the “productive” research questions developed and their related variable is

shown in Table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1- Complete list of research questions generated by Unit 1 POE students, and related variable. Research Question Variable

1. What if you change the temperature of the water?

Temperature of the liquid

2. What if you used different liquids instead of water?

Type of liquid used

3. Would the pop cans react the same way in salt water or sugar water?

4. What if you use juice boxes instead of cans?

Objects other than pop cans

5. What would happen if you open and then close the pop cans?

Pop cans which have been opened

6. What if you used expired soda? Expired soda

7. What would happen if you used a small can of Coke and a normal size can?

Size of pop cans

8. What would happen if you put both cans in the same water?

Number of beakers pop cans are put in

9. What if you put one can upside down and the other right side up?

Position of pop cans

10. What would grapes and olives do if they were the same weight?

Objects other than pop cans

11. What about different brands of pencils?

12. How would different sized popcorn kernels react?

13. How would an apple with and an apple without skin react?

14. How would a whole apple and an apple with a hole in the middle react?

15. What if you used different types of golf balls?

65

Students in this class spent fifteen minutes sharing their research questions with their

partner, choosing one to pursue, writing a procedure for the investigation and individually

predicting the outcome. The school bell signaled conclusion of the class.

All research questions each pair of students decided to investigate are reproduced in

Table 4.2 below, along with the predictions made by each student; the numbers in parenthesis

indicate the rating given to each research question with respect to rigor and centrality on a

scale of 1-5, and the rating given to each prediction with respect to prediction suitability (see

Appendix C.2 for the rubrics used). (Note: Student’s texts have been reproduced verbatim

from what they typed in their journal entries).

Table 4.2- Research questions and accompanying predictions developed by Unit1 POE students. Research Question Prediction 1. does macaroni float on bubles from a

mixture of corn syrup, warm water, wand soap soap.in a small beaker, we are going to see if the macaroni is heavy enough to go though the bubbles and the corn syrup or just bubbles. (3, 2)

1. the macaroni will go throgh the bubles but not the corn syrup, and water. (3)

2. will pasta float in a beaker of warm water, corn syrup, and soap?(3, 2)

2. That the macaroni will sink through the bubbles but not the corn syrup and water. (3)

3. howdo difrent objects densiteys compare in difrent dencitys of liquid (2, 1)

3. cirtan things will stop at certian liquids (1)

4. Which marble will float if I put one

marble in surger water, and the other in salt water?(4, 3)

4. I predict that the marble in the salt water will float and the marble in the surger water will sink.(3)

5. we are going to see if vegetable oil, corn

syrup, and a raw egg will float or sink in water. (4, 3)

5. That corn syrup will float in water because it's really thick and gooey I think that the oil might float and the egg will flot too (4)

6. what will sink and what will float, a 6. I think the raw egg will float in both of

66

beaker full of corn syrup, water, and sugar with a hard boiled egg dropped from a high distance, or a beaker full of corn syrup, water, and salt with a raw egg dropped from a low distance and then switch (4, 4)

the beakers and the hard boiled egg will always sink (3)

7. we think that light corn syrp will float the best out of tree containers: popcorn cenals, light corn syrup, and popcorn and cornsyrup. (2, 1)

7. i think that the light corn syrup will float the best (2)

8. Does the psta float more in sugar water or water mixed with vegetable oil? (3, 4)

8. The noodk will float and when the sugar goes in all of it will float to the top (1)

9. What is denser, a small beaker full of

corn oil, or a small beaker full of regular oil, and if you add sugar afterwards, will it make the lighter oil heavier? (2, 1)

9. I predict that the corn oil will e heavier at first, then when we add sugar to the veggie oil and it will become heavier (3)

10. Does the pasta float more in sugar water or water mixed with vegetable oil? (3, 4)

10. The oil wil float to the top and the pasta will float on the vegetable oil more than the sugar water. (3)

11. Does the pasta float more in sugar water

or water mixed with vegetable oil? (3, 4)

11. i predict that the pasta will not float in vegable water and will float in sugar water (3)

12. We are going to see if vegetable oil, corn

syrup, and one raw egg float or sink in water. (3, 4)

12. I think the corn syrup will sink because its thick and gooey I think the vegetable oil will float because its thick but not too thick I think the egg will sink because when i cook with eggs or boil them they sink in the water (4)

13. which one will sink, and which one will

float, a beaker full of corn syrup, water, and, sugar and a hard boiled egg dropped from a high distance, or a beaker full of corn syrup, water, and salt with a raw egg dropped from a low distance, and then switch (4, 3)

13. i think the raw egg will float because there is still air in the raw egg, the boiled egg has been bolied and lost some of the air. (4)

14. does the pasta float better in sugar water, or water mixed with vegitable oil. (4, 4)

14. the pasta will float equally well in both. (3)

15. What is denser, a small beaker full of 15. i predict that the lighter one with the

67

corn oil or a small beaker of regular oil and if u add sugar afterwards will it make the lighter oil heavier? (3, 4)

sugar will float longer than the one without the sugar. (1)

16. Which marble will float if I put one

marble in sugar water, and the other marble in salt water?(4, 3)

16. I think both marbles will sink because if it would float, the sugar or salt would hold the marbles but the marble is too heavy. (4)

(see Appendix D.17 and D.20 for the research questions POE students chose to investigate in

the other classes, along with their predictions)

Offered here are two examples of research questions deemed inappropriate.

What will happen if you put a crumpled up piece of paper in very hot water

and then a crumpled up tissue in very cold water? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

How long can a chocolate cookie float compared to a chocolate chip cookie?

(Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Unit 1, Day 2

My preliminary review of the research questions developed on day one showed that

some were inappropriate, lacking a focus that would have led to any productive outcomes, or

had little promise of developing a deeper understanding of density.

In an effort to guide students towards successful and rewarding investigations, I

decided to speak to the class about why particular research questions might not have resulted

in productive experiments. For example, one group wanted to mix some pop together to “see

what would happen.” Other groups had research questions that were not rigorously stated,

for example:

“Two different types of juices” (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Others had written research questions that were well stated, but would not have led to

productive outcomes or rewarding learning experiences, for example:

68

“What would happen if you drop a cherry with no pit and dropped it into cherry coke

with a high distance and what would happen if you dropped a cherry with a pit into cherry

coke from a low distance?” (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

A discussion of this nature is consistent with the degree and format of assistance and

guidance that I typically offer students during investigations. In a situation where I feel that

students need a more focused direction or that they are not pushing themselves to think

scientifically or are not seeing the potential of their investigation, I would first try to prompt

suggestions from the class in an effort to enhance the learning potential. If students are

unable to generate thoughtful ideas, I give suggestions so that the entire class could hear

them, in order to model the kind of thinking that we’re striving for. To remain consistent,

this was the approach that I used in each unit.

The lesson began as students sat with their partners from day one and logged into the

journal entry. Then I brought up the issue of “unproductive” research questions:

Teacher: In an experiment you need a focused question. A question is not when you

say you’re going to mix things together to “see what happens.” That is not a focused

question that tries to answer something specifically about floating or sinking. You

should be able to read your question aloud and everyone in this room should be able

to tell what you’re testing. (transcript, 10/1/09)

After reminding students that the objective of the investigation was to learn more about

density, I specifically focused the question on objects floating and sinking in a given liquid,

and how that related to density. Various materials, including those that were called for to

conduct the investigations students designed on day one (and recorded in their journals),

were prepared and laid out on a lab table. Students were asked to consider how they might

69

be able to use any of the materials to investigate the phenomenon observed during the

demonstration on day one. They were additionally told that they could keep their original

research question, or they could alter it if they felt they could design a research question with

the potential for a more rewarding outcome- that is, one that would help them learn more

about density, specifically how things float or sink in liquids and how that relates to their

density. I began to call off the materials available for their investigations.

Partners were given time to choose and discuss the research question they would

pursue. After four minutes, some partners had decided upon their research question. I asked

that one member of each partnered team announce their research question and intended

investigation aloud to the class.

This was done on the second day of each unit for every class, for a number of

reasons. First, it was meant to remind students of where they left off on day one of the unit,

and of their planned experiments as designed on day one. It also provided other students the

opportunity to ask questions that might strengthen planned investigations, and allowed for

extended creativity as some students modified their own planned investigations after

listening to the ideas of others. Finally, it provided me with an opportunity to question and

challenge each team in an effort to produce focused research questions with good potential

for learning to occur. It was important to me that planned experiments would appropriately

investigate the concept at hand. Once again, this is my standard practice whenever my

students engage in an investigation in the context of a particular curricular unit.

Teams spent eleven minutes describing and discussing their research questions and

planned investigations. The class bell rang to announce the end of the first period and the

investigations began. This class had a noticeable level of excitement. There were comments

70

such as “whoa” and “that’s cool” heard. Students were excited to describe their results to

me, and called me over to do so. Some groups walked around the classroom, interested to

see the results of other groups. As I was called to groups, I answered questions, guided

students where I thought it might be helpful, and tried to get a sense of students’ learning of

the key science ideas related to density in this case. Occasionally, I reminded students to

remain focused on their research question and to make careful observations.

Twenty-one minutes after beginning the investigations, the first group completed

their experiment. I continued to observe and talk to groups still engaged in their

investigations, as well as to those groups who had completed them. More groups completed

their investigations, began to clean up and complete their journal entry regarding their

conclusions (see Appendix B.1 for prompts). I made an announcement regarding

observations and conclusions to be written in their journal entries.

Teacher: your conclusion is where you’re going to talk about what you saw and

explain it. This is where you put everything together and show me that you

understand what happened. You can’t just say “this is what happened. I put an egg

in and it floated.” That’s an observation. Now, you’re going to say “I put an egg in

and it floated because… That’s my conclusion”. Whatever happened… you’re going

to use your observations to make a conclusion. (transcript, 10/1/09)

Thirty minutes after beginning them, every group had completed their investigation,

had cleaned up and was typing in their journal entries. The average amount of time spent on

this investigation was twenty-five minutes. After students submitted their responses they

logged off. There were some students who logged off only seconds before the bell rang to

end the class.

71

All conclusions inputted by the students are reported below, along with their rating

with respect to coherence and central concept articulation respectively (see Appendix C.5 for

rubrics used for this evaluation).

1. my conclution is that the macaroni has such a heavy desity that it sank through the

bubbles, corn syrup, and water.but it took longer to sink because the bubbles helped

it keep air in elbo, the air floats. (4, 3)

2. my comclusion is that the macarni does sink in the mixture but it takes a lot longer

than normal because the bubbles keep the air in it and keeps it steady. so it does sink

through the corn syrup and water but doesn't sink that fast in the bubbles (2, 1)

3. difrent liquids slaw stuf down (1, 1)

4. no matter what we filled the water with, salt or surger, the marbles sunk anyway. (1,

1)

5. when we did this project, we concluded that when the syrup was in the container it

floated but when when it wasn't it sunk, I think it's because of the air in the container.

the egg stuck to it and sunk so we conclude that the syrup sinks the egg sinks to and

the oil floats on top of the water (2, 1)

6. my conclusion is that the eggs sank because maybe they have the same dense. (2, 2)

7. that none of them float. (1, 1)

8. None of the pasta's floated so the pasta is more dence than the vegatable oil and the

sugar water. (3, 4)

9. I concluded that vegatable oil floats, even when things are added to it, because there

are things in it that causes it to float that outshine other masses. I also concluded that

72

corn oil is heavier because of how there are probably more chemicals than water,

causing it to be much closer to being a solid than the veggie oil. (2, 1)

10. Neither one of the pastas floated so the pasta is more dence than the vegetable oil and

the sugar water. (3, 4)

11. my conclusion is that both pieces of pasta did not float i think this happen becasue the

pasta is more dense then the water the vegable oil floated so that did not affect the

pasta and the sugar dissvoled and the water was still less dense than the water (3, 3)

12. When we did this project, we concluded that when the syrup was in the container it

floated but when it wasn't it sunk, I think it's because of the air in the container. The

egg sunk both times and some of the oil and syrup got stuck too it and sunk. So we

conlude that the syrup sinks, the egg sinks too, and the oil floats on the top of the

water. (2, 1)

13. my conclusion is that the eggs sank because they both probably have the same dense.

(2, 2)

14. neither floated. This is because the pasta is more dense than the water. the vegitable

oil floated so that did not affect the pasta, and te shugar dizzolved, and the water was

still less dense than the water. (3, 3)

15. I investegated that when we placed the sugar,salt and food colouring in the beaker

with the veggie oil it still floated. But when we only use corn oil in one of the beaker it

sank beacuse the corn oil is much heavier beacuse it contains alot of chemicals and

less water is added to it. So it concluded that the more things we added to the beaker

of veggie oil it floated.And adding noting to the corn oil it still remained heavier than

the other. (2, 1)

73

16. The marbles sink down even though theres some salt or sugar on water. (1, 1)

4.2.2 Students develop an investigation without a prior demonstration

Unit 1, Day 1

As the lesson began, there was a picture of an iceberg displayed on the Smart Board. It

was a depiction of the percentage of ice that is above and below water. I have always used

this picture as the first slide in a PowerPoint presentation to introduce the concept of density.

Once students were seated, the illustration immediately attracted the attention of one student,

acting as a discrepant event:

David: Can ice ever really sink, until it turns into the water and mixes into the water?

(transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

This question engaged the class in a discussion that lasted three minutes, as students

called out answers to this question and raised others.

Craig: Does dry ice float?

Joyce: I think ice floats because it’s less dense than water, but if we made ice out of a

different kind of liquid, then maybe it could change.

Dillon: It depends on the size of the ice.

Solomon: You could put it in a liquid that was kind of creamy, like milk.

Helen: milk cubes (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

I pointed out that each of these questions was excellent and pertinent to the concept of

density, which we would be addressing. Students opened their notebooks and wrote down

the definition for density, shown on the next slide. I asked students to define volume, a word

used in the definition. This class had just completed a unit which included the concept of

volume, so this question was meant to connect the most recent lesson with the current one.

74

Responses from the students who volunteered to answer indicated an understanding for

volume. As the slides continued, students were asked whether they had ever heard the word

density used in their own lives. When one student recalled the phrase “dense forest” it led to

a brief discussion of what that meant, followed by an illustration I drew on the Smart Board

representing a dense forest filled with trees and, as a comparison, a forest which would not be

considered dense.

Students were asked whether they had any questions up to this point and responded by

affirming their understanding of density.

Marissa: so like the more stuff that is in there, the more dense it is? (transcript, Class

Audio, 9/29/09)

Recollections of 5th grade classroom experiences with density and other past personal

experiences (referenced to as PPE’s hereafter) helped students to confirm their understanding

using real life examples.

Rick: well when things freeze they get bigger, you know. And cold isn’t a substance, like

you can’t create it. So, that means the atoms expand, therefore making it less dense but

having more volume. (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

The inaccurate description of how “atoms expand” reflected that we had not yet

discussed atomic structure, but provided an opportunity to briefly preface the next unit. The

traditional lesson continued by showing the formula and units for density, which was written

into students notebooks. It concluded with the density of water and how an object’s density

relates to whether it sinks or floats in water.

Throughout these forty-one minutes of the lecture, students had raised questions

concerning density that had the potential to be investigated in the classroom. As these

75

questions arose, I wrote them down on easel paper hanging in front of the classroom. I now

referred to them as I challenged students to design a research question intended to more

deeply investigate density.

Teacher: You’re going to come up with an idea that you can use to study density.

Make a real question that you can use to study density. What kinds of experiments

could you do to study density and answer questions that you might have? Like

these… (pointing to easel paper).

Craig- Like how does temp affect the density of water?

Helen: I would use things different than water, because I like to try things I don’t

know. (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

This first response was taken from the short list of questions on the easel paper. The

second comment led to a definition and brief discussion of what a variable is and what

qualifies it as appropriate. I prompted students to think of the amount of water as a variable,

because they were having difficulty coming up with one. Additional prompting led to

suggestions to investigate the densities of various liquids, different pencils, pens and coins.

These were followed by a student who, still considering PPE’s, questioned why people float

in water. Students immediately shouted out their beliefs and experiences concerning this.

The discussion of variables continued when one student commented about people floating in

ocean water. Information presented earlier was referenced at this point.

Rick: when you said the density of water was 1, what kind of water were you talking

about? (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

76

This ability to use class notes as a tool for reference was an aspect of lecture style classes that

many students later pointed out was valuable to their learning experience, as discussed later

in this chapter.

The class discussion involved a great deal of prompting and leading in an effort to

help students develop appropriate research questions and variables that would gain deeper

insight into the concept of density. Although some excellent examples were developed, there

was a much tighter student focus on investigation of various substances simply to determine

their densities, including comparisons of grapes and raisins, and that of different coins. The

entire discussion of research questions and variables took 25 minutes. The final list compiled

on easel paper included: Can ice ever sink, is salt water a different density than regular water,

is hot or cold water more dense, distilled water compared to regular water, what happens to

density of water when oil is added, what is less dense than water, how does density of grapes,

raisins, or eggs compare in different liquids, does it matter if you use different size beakers,

is density affected by amount of water, do different brands of pencils have different densities,

and do different liquids have different densities (soda, OJ, and other liquids)?

Data analysis of the independent observer charts showed that 44% of the class

exhibited observable engagement (see Appendix D.13 for a list of identifiers) during this

lesson.

Students then opened the laptops at their desks and were instructed to log into their

journal entry. In question number one students rated their interest level in pursuing an

investigation of the concept. Before answering the question we had a discussion about the

meaning of the word “phenomenon”, a word used in the journal entry question, in a similar

77

manner as to what was done in the previous class (POE). The data shows 69% of the class

rated their interest in the 4-5 range (see Appendix D.14).

I asked students to individually write as many research questions as possible to

investigate the concept of density, specifically how objects float and sink in liquid. In this

unit students spent five minutes typing research questions. A complete list of the

“productive” research questions developed and their variables is shown in Table 4.3 below:

Table 4.3- Complete list of research questions generated by Unit 1 L/I students and related variables. Research Question Variable

1. If there was ice in the water, would it change the density of water?

Ice in water

2. Would ice cubes react differently than milk cubes?

Ice cubes made with different liquids

3. Would the size of an ice cube change the way it reacts in water?

Size of ice cube

4. Would the size of the ice cube matter to how it reacts?

5. Will ice sink faster in warm or cold water? Temperature of water

6. Does the temperature of the water affect the way objects react in it?

7. Does a hollowed ice cube react differently in water than a whole ice cube?

Hollowed ice cube

8. Which is more dense: water with ice in small or large beaker?

Size of beaker

9. Will ice sink faster in warm or cold water? Type of liquid

10. Does the amount of water affect its density?

Volume of liquid

11. Is salt water or sugar water denser? Densities of various substances

12. What substances are less dense than water?

13. Which is more dense: glass or plastic?

14. Which is more dense: copper or iron?

15. Can any metals float?

78

16. Which pencil lead is denser?

17. Would apple sauce and whole apples react differently?

18. Which is denser: grapes or raisins?

Students in this class now spent twelve minutes sharing their research questions with

their partner, choosing one to pursue, writing a procedure for the investigation and

individually predicting the outcome. The school bell signaled conclusion of the class.

All research questions students chose to investigate are reproduced in Table 4.4

below, along with the predictions made by each student; as done in the previous vignette, the

numbers in parenthesis indicate the rating given to each research question with respect to

rigor and centrality on a scale of 1-5, and the rating given to each prediction with respect to

prediction suitability (see Appendix C.2 for the rubrics used).

Table 4.4- Research questions and accompanying predictions developed by Unit1 L/I students, along with rating scores for rigor and centrality for research questions and suitability for predictions, out of a scale of 1-5. Research Question Prediction 1. We will test coper and metel in suger and

salt water. Keep on adding food colering,corn syupe and vestable oil. (1, 1)

1. I predict that both coper and metel will sink in suger and salt water, but mite flot with vestoble and corn syrupe added to the mixs. (2)

2. how whold a hard boiled egg float in suger water and salt water. (3, 5)

2. I think the egg might sink in the water with salt and the water with suger. (2)

3. How will a hard boiled egg be different if it is in salt water than in water with sugar? (4, 5)

3. I think that the salt or sugar might make one egg more absorbant to the food coloring than the other and maybe something will affect the shell as well, but I'm not really expecting that. (1)

4. is vegetable oil more dense than 4. i predict that the vegetable oil mixed with

79

vegetable oil mixed with food coloring?(1, 4)

food coloring would be more dense. (3)

5. test coper bibi and metle in suger and salt water and after we put food colering and corn syurp and vegtible oil. (1, 1)

5. i think that copper and metle are gana sink in suger and salt water but not in corn suyrp (2)

6. Which is denser, pennies or bebe bullets in corn syrup?(3, 5)

6. I predict that the bebe bullet will sink faster. (1)

7. which will sink or which one will foat one filled canister of sugar or a raw egg in regular water or in salt water?(3, 4)

7. I predict that the suar will float longer in the water. (1)

8. How will putting sugar and salt (in airtight vials) in different beakers of water affect the way they sink or float? What if we put them in the same beaker together? Does putting different liquids or sugar or salt in the water affect the way the vials of sugar and salt float?(4, 5)

8. I predict that the sugar will float and the salt will sink no matter what we mix into the water. (2)

9. fill a beacker with water and put one regular egg and one hard boiled egg.which egg is more or less dense. (3, 5)

9. i think that the egg will sink faster in the food coloring. (1)

10. which is denser, copper pennies or bebe bullets in corn syrup?(3, 5)

10. i think they both will sink, but the pellet faster (1)

11. What would a rubber stopper do in the water (sink or float) compared marble?(2, 5)

11. the marble will sink and the rubber stopper will float. (the marble is more dense) (4)

12. How will putting sugar and salt in different beakers affect the way they sink or float than when they were in the same beaker? Does putting different liquids or sugar or salt in the water affect the way the vials of sugar and salt float?(4, 5)

12. I predict that the vials might sink in the water, but they sink at different speeds (1)

13. we have two beakers filled with water, one hard boiled egg and one regular egg, which egg is more or less dense?(4, 5)

13. i predict that the hard boiled egg will sink because the other things in the beaker will fill it up and make it sink, it will fill like a sponge. (3)

80

14. Wich on will sink or float the raw egg than a filled canester of sugar in regular H2O or salt H20. (3, 3)

14. That the sugar container will float and the sugar will float in both. (1)

15. is vagable oil more or less dense with food coloring? we are going to have two beakers both with water we'll pour vegetable oil into one and vegalble oil with food coloring in the other and see which one flaots. (3, 5)

15. i predict that the vegable oil with food coloring will be more dense then the one without. (2)

16. What would happen if we put a marble in water? will it sink or float compared to a rubber stoppeer?(2, 5)

16. I predict the marble will sink and the rubber stopper will float.( The marble is more dense) (4)

Offered here are two examples of research questions deemed “unproductive” because they

could not be investigated using the necessary materials in our classroom laboratory:

Can humans sink when they are dead? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Why do we float? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Unit 1, Day 2

Similar to my experience with the POE class, my preliminary review of the research

questions developed on day one showed that many were “unproductive”, lacking a focus that

would have led to any productive outcomes, or had little promise of developing a deeper

understanding of density. As I had done for the other class, I spoke to this class about why

particular proposed investigations might not have been productive experiments. For

example, one group intended to put a lit match in a closed bottle and drop it in a beaker of

water to “see what would happen.” The discussion this class engaged in was consistent with

that experienced in the POE class.

As I had done in the other classes, various materials, including those that were called

for in the investigations designed on Day One, were prepared and laid out on a lab table. The

lesson began as students sat with their partners from day one and logged into their journal

81

entry. After reminding students that the objective of the investigation was to learn more

about density, I specifically focused the question on objects floating and sinking, and how

that relates to density.

Teacher: As I say the names of these objects I want you to think in your head “how

can I use these objects to do an experiment on density?” and in particular-

specifically- “how can I use these objects to test and experiment how things sink or

float?” (transcript, 10/1/09)

As in the other classes, students were told they could keep their original research

question, or alter it if they felt they could design a research question with the potential for a

more rewarding outcome. I called off the available supplies as I had done in the other

classes. Partners were given time to review and possibly modify their research question.

After 5 minutes, some partners had decided upon their research question. I asked that one

member of each team announce their research question and intended investigation aloud to

the class.

Teams spent nine minutes describing and discussing their research questions and

planned investigations. The investigations began. I noticed much less excitement than in the

earlier POE class (and also the NOE class that followed). Unlike my experiences in those

classes, there were no students excitedly calling me to share their observations or results.

There were no students excitedly looking at other student’s experiments. There was

definitely noticeably less energy. I walked around the class to observe, answer questions,

guide students where I thought it might be helpful, and tried to get a sense for any learning

that was occurring. Occasionally, I reminded students to remain focused on their research

question and to make careful observations.

82

Fourteen minutes after the investigations began, the first group completed their

experiment. I continued to observe and talk to groups still engaged in their investigations, as

well as to those groups who had completed them. More groups completed their

investigations, began to clean up and answer journal entry responses. As I had done in the

POE class, I made an announcement regarding observations and conclusions to be written in

their journal entries.

Twenty-nine minutes after beginning them, every group had completed their

investigation, had cleaned up and was typing in their journal entries. The average amount of

time spent on this investigation was twenty-two minutes. As students submitted their

responses, they logged off. There were some students who continued to logoff only seconds

before the bell rang to end the class.

All conclusions inputted by the students are reported below, along with their rating,

with respect to coherence and central concept articulation respectively (see Appendix C.5 for

rubrics used for this evaluation).

1. That nether the copper nor the metel floeted. (1, 1)

2. the salt water make the difference in if the egg floats or sinks becase the egg that was

in the suger water first sank to the bottom and the egg in the salt still floated (2, 1)

3. I figured out that salt and water will make a hard boiled egg float, but only a little bit

of the egg will be showing. Sugar didn't seem to affect the egg much, and I think that

salt also made the egg absorb more color. (2, 1)

4. my conclusion to the invesagation i conducted is that vegatble oil mixed with food

coloring is more dense than regular vegetable oilby a tiny bit (4, 4)

5. thore the copper bibi and the metle bolts sank (1, 1)

83

6. To never depend on the weigh by the size of the object because it is the density inside

the object that truly matters. (1, 5)

7. that the raw egg has more density then the sugar and the sugar has less density than

the egg so the egg sunk before the sugar (3, 4)

8. I conclude that salt and sugar are both less dense than water, sugar water, salt water,

and water with vegetable oil in it. I concluded this because we put vials of sugar and

salt in sugar water, salt water, and water with vegetable oil in it and no matter what

they both floated which means they are less dense than water. (4, 4)

9. when i put both hard boiled and regular in the water i sank so that tells me its bothe

eggs are more dense that water when i put the food coloring in it was still on the

bottom and when i put corn sirup in i was still on the bottom and when i put sugar in

so its still on the bottom so that showws that everything is less dense than an egg. (4,

4)

10. the penny and the bebe pellet were both denser than corn syrup, because they sank,

but the pellet was the most dense because it sank faster. (3, 4)

11. Both a marble and a rubber stopper are more dense than water because they both

sank in water. (3, 4)

12. Salt and sugar are less dense than water, water with salt, water with sugar, and

water with vegetable oil. (3, 4)

13. My hypothesis was wrong about the hard boiled egg floating, both the regular egg

and the hard boiled stayed at the bottom. even with all the things we added. (2, 1)

14. That the raw egg has more density than the sugar and the sugar has less density than

the egg so the egg sunk before the sugar. (3, 4)

84

15. my conclusion is that vegatble oil with food coloring is more dense than normal

vegatble oil. (3, 4)

16. Both the marble and the rubber stopper are more dense then water because they both

sank. (3, 4)

4.2.3 Students develop an investigation following a discrepant event using NOE

Unit 1, Day 1 As students entered the classroom there were two large beakers, with one soda can in

each, on a demonstration table in the front of the classroom, to the side of the room away

from the entrance; one can was floating and had sunk. Students did not have to pass by this

table on their way to be seated. Some students immediately drew attention to the cans as

they walked to their seats. The first comment was heard about thirty seconds after the first

students entered.

Aaron: look, see Diet Coke floats (transcript, 9/29/09)

At least 4 other students were heard talking about the display. I explained that the equipment

set up was “left over” from the previous class. Students were heard moaning in disapproval.

I began to wheel the display table as if I was putting it away in a storage room. One student

mentioned that the can looked big underwater. I responded that it was something they would

study next year and another student yelled out “that’s diffraction.” Another student yelled

out that he had done something similar in sixth grade at a different school he attended. I

asked if anyone else had ever seen it before. This immediately began an unrestrained fast-

paced discussion as students shouted out personal experiences and explanations. There did

not appear to be any systematic order to the conversation that ensued. Students were very

engaged and there was a great deal of observed excitement and energy.

85

Chad: I did this once before. [I saw it] in my coolers. My cousins showed me from

Florida. They explained it to me. It’s kind of cool.

Karen: (speech overlap) yeah, that’s what I was going to say!

Alicia: I saw this on that show Mythbusters! Yeah, but they tried to make it like least

cold and they put it in ice water like that (points to display). (transcript, Class Audio,

9/29/09)

A number of students were heard overlapping each other in speech, excitedly talking about

seeing the same show or having seen this phenomenon themselves. I had to ask students to

speak one at a time. More comments were shouted out.

Allen: is the reason that the regular Coke goes to the bottom is that the sugar adds

more density?

Teacher: are you guessing or have you seen this before?

Allen: I’m guessing. (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

This led into a five minute class discussion on density, as some students yelled out what they

thought density was, based on personal experiences.

Teacher: well, I wasn’t planning on doing this, but I like your answers and I want to

find more about what you guys know about this, cause some people are talking about

density and it actually does have something to do with density. I’d like to know a

little bit more about what you know about this. (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

Students nodded their heads in agreement and some exclaimed “yeah” or “sure!”

Teacher: has anyone ever seen density in their real life or can explain it? (transcript,

Class Audio, 9/29/09)

86

Students were heard verbalizing what they knew about density as well as positing questions

about it.

Karen: (explains how she floats while wearing a life preserver and her mother sinks

without one) so, if you’re wearing a life preserver, how does that make you less

dense?

Chad: cause it has so much air in it.

Cameron: it’s kinda like a balloon. If you put helium in a balloon it will float and if

you put air it will sink.

Bryan: when divers go into fresh water I think they can swim down and then rise up

on their own, but if they’re in salt water you have to swim up, but you fall down.

Teacher: anyone know the difference between salt water and fresh water? (transcript,

Class Audio, 9/29/09)

The steady commentary remained unrestrained and unorganized. A conversation ensued

regarding the differences between salt water and fresh water.

Data analysis of the independent observer charts showed that 62% of the class

exhibited observable engagement (see Appendix D.13).

Nine minutes after the discussion of the display began at the start of class, I asked

students to open their laptops and login to their journal entries. In question number one

students rated their interest level in pursuing an investigation of the displayed phenomenon.

Before answering the question we had a discussion about the meaning of the word

“phenomenon”, a word used in the journal entry question. The data show 32% of the class

rated their interest in the 4-5 range (see Appendix D.14 for comparative data in other units

and/or classes).

87

Students moved on to the next question, where they spent seven minutes typing

observations and an explanation. Thirty-six minutes into the class we began to discuss the

next objective.

Teacher: I want you to come up with questions where you can investigate anything

about what you see here… (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

I said this to the class to provide a general direction with the intent to follow up by discussing

variables, leading into a discussion about research questions. However, this class continued

to exhibit a great deal of spontaneous energy and began to shout out ideas for research

questions, bypassing the intended discussion of variables.

Alicia: 4 beakers/ 2 with warm water and 2 with cold water. Put diet in one of each

and reg coke in the other 2.

Teacher: so what would your question be? What are you investigating? What are

you trying to figure out… like I want to know if …what?

Alicia: does… [having difficulty explaining]

Chad: does the coke can rise in hot water?

Teacher: that’s one thing you could find, but what’s the big general question?

Aaron: does temperature affect density?

Teacher: perfect, those are the kinds of things I want you to think about. Do you

know what you call these things you’re talking about changing in the experiment?

Aaron: the variable (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

The bell rang to end the first period.

Teacher: good, now look at this [pointing to display]. Tell me what things you could

change to make a variable. (transcript, Class Audio, 9/29/09)

88

There were two variables shared aloud that were inappropriate because they could not

be investigated with the necessary equipment in our classroom laboratory. For example, one

student wanted to investigate whether the pop cans would float in melted chocolate. There

was a bit of prompting and leading, which appeared to be valuable to students as they rapidly

submitted many more appropriate variables which I wrote on easel paper. As it continued,

variables and research questions were both woven into the discussion. Throughout, I made it

a point to identify their appropriateness and their relationship. The final list compiled on

easel paper included: amount of H2O, temperature of H2O, placement of cans, different

liquids, and different objects.

After a total of twenty-two minutes spent discussing research questions, I asked

students to individually write as many research questions as possible to investigate the

observed phenomenon in the demonstrated display, specifically how objects float and sink in

liquid. In this unit, students spent five minutes typing research questions. A complete list of

the “productive” research questions developed and their variables is shown in Table 4.5

below:

Table 4.5- Complete list of research questions generated by Unit 1 NOE students and related variables. Research Question Variable

1. What would happen if you used different liquids?

Type of liquid in beaker

2. What would happen with salt and sugar water?

3. What if you poured the soda into the water? Would the cans still float?

4. What if you added baking soda to the water?

5. What happens if you change the amount of water?

Volume of liquid in beaker

6. What if you changed the temperature of the water?

Temperature of liquid

89

7. Do different colors of water (using food coloring) affect the results?

Color of liquid in beaker

8. What if you change the temperature of the soda?

Temperature of the soda

9. How would different types of soda react? Type of soda

10. What would happen if you mixed the two sodas?

Mixed soda

11. Would different types of wood float or sink?

Objects other than pop cans

12. Would it float or sink if something that floats was in something that sinks?

Partners were now chosen randomly and students in this class spent eighteen minutes

sharing their research questions with their partner, choosing one to pursue, writing a

procedure for the investigation and individually predicting the outcome. There were ten

minutes left in class and students spent that time announcing their chosen research question

to the class. As they did, their classmates asked occasional questions. The school bell

signaled conclusion of the class.

All research questions students chose to investigate are reproduced in Table 4.6

below, along with the predictions made by each student; the numbers in parenthesis indicate

the rating given to each research question with respect to rigor and centrality on a scale of 1-

5, and the rating given to each prediction with respect to prediction suitability (see Appendix

C.2 for the rubrics used).

Table 4.6- Research questions and accompanying predictions developed by Unit1 NOE students. Research Question Prediction 1. what would happen if two bottles one, all

the way filled with bb pellets and one filled half way with bb pellets, and dropped them into two beakers each filled with corn syrup, vegtible oil, and water.the beakers would have diffrent.Also what would happen to the liquads when we put them together in

1. I predict the container containing half bb pellets will sink faster because it holds less wait. (3)

90

same liquad. (5, 2) 2. There will be to beakers and in each

beaker there will be three layers. The first layer would be corn syrup. The secound layer would be vegtable oil.The third layer would be water. Before we mix the liquids we would color them to see how the different mixtures mix together. The next step we would do is drop a little bottel filled with bebes. In the other beaker we would drop a little bottle 1/2 full with bebes. We would see witch little bottle sinks faster. (4, 3)

2. I think the little bottle full with bebes will sink faster then the bottle half filled with bebes. Also I think the liquids will mix together and not be exactly 3 layers. (2)

3. we would fill 1 beaker with vegtable oil 1 with corn syrup and drop 1 hard boil egg in each and see if they float or sinks. (4, 5)

3. i predict that the egg in vegtable oil will sink and the egg in corn syrup will float (2)

4. bb gun pellots vs. sugar cubes in corn syrup. after that we'll change the liquids (5, 2)

4. i predict the sugar cubes will float and the bb pellots will sink (1)

5. in which will beebes and bolts float in better, 1 beaker with oil, 1 with water, and one with oil and water combined ?(4, 4)

5. the nuts and beebes will float in oil and water it will also float in oil, but it will not float in water(2)

6. If we fill one canister of ganulated sugar and fill another one with sugar cubes, will it sink or float? after that we will mix different liquids and see if it effects the results. (5, 4)

6. that the ganulated sugar will float and the sugar cues will sink. (1)

7. We would fill one beaker full of vegtable oil and one beaker full of corn syrup. Then we take two hot boiled eggs and drop one into oil and one into the syrup and see whitch floats and witch sinks. (4, 5)

7. I predict the egg in the vegtable oil will sink faster than the egg in corn syrup. (2)

8. The question we are going to ask is will it float or sink if their are 5 copper bbs in one canaster in corn syrup, and if it will

8. I think that the canaster with10 copper bbs will drop down to the bottom of the beaker. I think that tha canaster with 5

91

float or sink if their are 10 copper bbs in another canaster in corn syrup? (5, 5)

copper bbs will be covered with corn syrup but not go to the bottom of the beaker. (2)

9. first you take 2 raw eggs and 2 beakers,

then you put a amount of oil in the beaker then put the egg inside of it and you do the same thing with the corn syrup. then we will add water and food coloring then put it in the beakers. the question: will the egg float in the oil or the corn syrup. (4, 4)

9. i percit that the egg will float in the oil because when u add water to oil it floats and i think the egg will sink in the corn syrup cuse it thick (4)

10. Which floats beater in corn syrup, bb pellets or sugar cubes? Afterwards, is there any liquid that can change the outcome? (4, 5)

10. I predict neither will float and nothing will change the outcome. (2)

11. If you fill one cannister with granulated sugar and one with sugar cubes, will they sink or float? After that, we will try mixing diferent liquids together and see if it effects whether they sink or float. (5, 4)

11. I predict that both the granulated sugar and the sugar cubes will float. (2)

12. What happens if you have 3 beakers with water, oil and water with oil. And then drop the nuts and bolts and copper bullets into it. Which thing floats in which kind of liquid. (4, 4)

12. I predict that the stuff in the oil will float, the stuff in the water will sink. and in the mixture i thin k the nuts and bolts will float and i think the bullets will sink. (2)

13. The question we are going to ask is, will it float or sink if their if there are 5 cooper bbs in one canister in corn syrup, and 10 bbs in another canister with corrn syrup ??? (5, 5)

13. I predict that the canister with 10 bbs will drop faster because it has more weight inside. (3)

14. You take two beakers, and fill one with corn syrup, and the other with vegtable oil. Then we'll put one egg in each one. Which one will float?Then, we'll add water and food coloring to it. Then, which will float? (4, 4)

14. i predict that the egg in the vegtable oil will float. (1)

Offered here are two examples of research questions deemed inappropriate.

92

Sticks- do they float or not? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Does a test tube float? (Journal Entry, 9/29/09)

Unit 1, Day 2

Similar to my experience with the POE and L/I class, my preliminary review of the

research questions developed on day one showed that many were “unproductive”, lacking a

focus that would have led to any insightful outcomes, or had little promise of developing a

deeper understanding of density. As I had done in the other classes, I spoke to this class

about why particular proposed investigations may not be productive experiments. For

example, one group intended to investigate whether a copper penny would float in water.

The discussion this class engaged in was similar to that experienced in the other classes.

As I had done in the POE class, various materials, including those that were called for

in the investigations designed on day one, were prepared and laid out on a lab table. The

lesson began as students sat with their partners from day one and logged into the journal

entry. After reminding students that the objective of the investigation was to learn more

about density, I specifically focused the question on objects floating and sinking, and how

that relates to density.

As in the other classes, students were told they could stick to their original research

question, or alter it if they felt they could design a research question with the potential for a

more rewarding outcome. I called off the available supplies as I had done in the other

classes. Partners were given time to review and possibly modify their research question.

After four minutes, some partners had decided upon their research question. I asked that one

member of each team announce their research question and intended investigation aloud to

the class.

93

Teams spent twelve minutes describing and discussing their research questions and

planned investigations. The class bell rang to announce the end of the first period just

moments before students finished this. The investigations began. As in the POE class, this

class displayed a heightened level of excitement. This was observed through student’s

enthusiastic comments, tone of voice and energetic physical behavior. Comments such as

“That is so sick!” and “Oh my god- watch this, come here- watch this!” were heard. Students

excitedly called me over to share their results and observations. As in the POE class, there

were groups anxiously looking at the results of other groups. As I was called to groups, I

answered questions, provided direction, and tried to get a sense for any learning that was

occurring. Occasionally, I reminded students to remain focused on their research question

and to make careful observations.

Seventeen minutes after beginning the investigations, the first group completed their

experiment. I continued to observe and talk to groups still engaged in their investigations, as

well as to those groups who had completed them. More groups completed their

investigations, began to clean up and answer journal entry responses. As I had done in the

POE and L/I class, I made an announcement regarding observations and conclusions to be

written in their journal entries.

Twenty-eight minutes after beginning them, every group had completed their

investigation, had cleaned up and was typing in their journal entries. The average amount of

time spent on this investigation was twenty-three minutes. After students submitted their

responses they logged off. The next ten minutes was spent completing journal entries. There

were some students who logged off only seconds before the bell rang to end the class.

94

All conclusions inputted by the students are reported below, along with their rating,

with respect to coherence and central concept articulation respectively (see Appendix C.5 for

rubrics used for this evaluation).

1. my conclusion is that even though the bottles contained diffrent amount of bb pellets

they both sunk to the bottom at the same time. the one that was full, turned to its side

because it had more weight than the container that only contained half the amount of

bb pellets. (1, 1)

2. My conclusion is that corn syrup has the most densaty then water then vegtable oil

and that is why when we put all the liquids togather the corn syrup stayed at the

bottom of the beaker and then the water stayed in between te corn surup and the

vegtable oil and the vegetable oil stayed at the top. Also when we put the little bottels

in 1 filed to the top with bebes and then other 1/2 filled with bebes, they bothe sinked

through the liquids at the same speed but the little bottel fully filled went on it side

because it had to much weight. (3, 4)

3. in conclusion the egg in the corn surp didn't sink because it is so thick and it couldn't

get throught it. The egg in the vegtable oil sunk because it is not as thick so it could

get through. (2, 1)

4. i under stand that the sugar cubes rose and the bb pellots sank (1, 1)

5. In conclusion nuts and beebes float in oil,water and oil and water. This is probably

because the nuts and beebes are less dense than the 3 liquids. (4, 3)

6. That wether it is loose or compacted, the sugar could float in water and in oil. The

sugar floated in both because in the oil there is more weight pushing it up and the

weight did not effect it in the water. (3, 1)

95

7. My prediction on the expirement is corect. The egg in the corn syrup did float while

the egg in the oil sank. I believe this is because the corn syrup is very thick and can

keep anegg afloat while the vegtale oil is less thick so it cant hold much density. (3, 2)

8. The heavier the object is, the deeper it will go i corn syrup. (2, 1)

9. my conclusion is that the oil and water sank the egg but the corn syurp and water

kept the egg up wich is totally diffrent from my prediction. the oil was not heavy so

the egg sank and the corn syurp was heavy so that what kept the egg up. (2, 1)

10. I think the sugar cube floated because there was also air, which is much less dence

than corn syrup. I think the bb pellets sank because it was much dencer than the corn

syrup. I think the liquids layerd because each liquid had different dencitys, so the less

dence floated on the dencer liquids. (4, 5)

11. I was right, both the granulated sugar and the sugar cubes floated in both water and

in water/vegetable oil. this happened because no matter what form it is in, sugar is

not very dense. (4, 3)

12. Oil is less dense than water. When there is no air bebe bullets dont float and when

there is air they do float.It is the same with nuts. (2, 2)

13. We concluded that the canister with 10 bbs sank faster than the canister with 5 bbs.

(1, 1)

14. My conclusion is that my prediction was wrong. I thought that the vegetable oil was

going to make the egg float, but it was actually the corn syrup.I think I know why the

corn syrup held the egg up because the corn syrup is very dense, and the molecules

are really tightly packed together, so it's more dense. The water with food coloring

stayed at the top when we poured it into the corn syrup. I think it happened because

96

it's so dense, nothing came come through. When we poured the water with the the

food coloring in the vegtable oil, it sank to the bottom, just like the egg. I think it's

because the vegtable oil is not as thick as the corn syrup, so it lets things go through

better. (5, 5)

The POE, NOE and L/I lessons within units Two and Three developed in similar

ways to the correspondent lesson design in Unit One, as depicted in the three previous

vignettes. For brevity, I chose not to include their detailed narrative account in the text of

this chapter, but rather I have included tables in Appendices D.17- D.22, that report on

the research questions, predictions, and conclusions that each student developed for their

investigation for each of the other six classes in the study, as well as table in Appendices

D.23- D.28 that report the entire range of research questions and variables generated by

each class in the same six lessons. These tables are intended to provide information

about student work to complement and inform the interpretation of the tables in

Appendices D.1- D.16, where instead I have reported the results of my evaluation of the

student work in each unit using the rubrics articulated in Appendices C.2- C.5.

4.3 Research Question One

In the next section I report findings pertinent to each research question, building on

the narrative accounts included in the previous section, as well as an analysis of quantitative

data based on the scoring of students’ journal entries and observer’s engagement charts – as

summarized in the various tables included in Appendix D and referred to as needed in what

follows, as well as other relevant qualitative data.

97

4.3.1 How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event?

To address this research question, I will first report on the extent to which the POE

lesson design impacted the nature and quality of the investigations students initiated and

conducted after a POE demonstration in each of the three classes.

This will be achieved by reporting on (a) the number and nature of the research

questions they generated across the three units when a POE design was utilized, (b) the rigor,

“centrality”, and “prediction suitability” of the research question each student chose to

investigate, (c) the quality of the protocols the students generated, (d) the nature of their

observations and data analysis, and (e) the “coherence” and “central concept articulation” of

the conclusions each student wrote.

In the effort to identify what design elements of the POE demonstration approach

affected students investigations, and how this occurred, I also examined qualitative data

collected through observations, teacher’s log, students’ journal entries, and transcripts of

final reflection and student follow-up interviews. Two main design elements characteristic

of POE emerged as important from this analysis- (a) the fact that the students were able to

observe the equipment actively being used in a POE demonstration, and (b) the initial

prediction-making component central to this design. In the final components of this section,

I will report on findings related to these two design elements and their impact on the

students’ investigations.

Number and nature of the research questions generated by the students.

As documented in Appendix D.1, and summarized in Table 4.7 below, POE students

generated, on average, between 1.4- 4.8 research questions.

98

Table 4.7- Average number of research questions per student for POE classes in each unit

Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

Unit 3-Cohesion

Average # of research questions generated by each POE student

1.4 3.3 4.8

(see Appendix D.1 for more details).

With the exception of the first unit (where perhaps the students were still getting used

to the idea of generating questions for investigation), all students were able to generate at

least two research questions. In the POE lessons, the research questions that students

developed when asked to write as many as possible included all of the equipment employed

in the demonstrations with diverse uses for each variable (see Appendices D.23 and D.26).

“Quality” of the research questions investigated by each student.

To evaluate the “quality” of the research questions the students generated and

investigated, I developed rubrics to measure the “rigor”, “centrality”, and “prediction

suitability” of the research question each student chose to investigate. Rigor referred to

whether the research question was scientifically sound, investigable, and demonstrated depth.

Centrality referred to whether it was central to the concept of the lesson. Prediction

suitability referred to whether the predictions were appropriately aligned with the research

question and supported by scientific reasoning. On a scale of 1-5 (see Appendix C.2 for

detailed rubrics corresponding to each score), the average ratings along these criteria

received in the class using a POE design for each of the three units is reported in Table 4.8

below. In interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind that apart from the unit

that preceded this intervention these students had never before been asked to generate

99

research questions in my classroom. Therefore, I was considering a score of 2 or above as

acceptable for this stage of development. The rigor of the research questions was either

slightly above or slightly below a score of 3, which I considered acceptable for students who

are just beginning to learn to develop research questions.

Table 4.8- Average rating scores for research questions received in POE classes for each of the three units, out of a possible score of 5. POE Unit 1-

Density

POE Unit 2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

POE Unit 3-

Cohesion

Rigor of chosen research question

3.1 2.5 3.6

Centrality of chosen research question

2.8 2.9 4.6

Prediction suitability of chosen research question

1.8 1.6 2.6

(see Appendices D.2-D.4 for a comparison of these ratings across units and classes).

Narrow focus of the physical demonstration in POE classes led to intensive

discussion of variables, in turn leading to rather rigorously developed research questions.

With respect to centrality, POE students made predictions, observations, explained their

observations, identified variables and developed research questions, all without a prior

detailed discussion of the focal scientific concept- which makes it difficult to develop

research questions that are central to the concept of the lesson. As a result, I considered the

scores for centrality, which were above or slightly below 3, to be appropriate. The low

prediction suitability ratings can be explained by the fact that the POE students did not

receive detailed instruction on the concept, as this would have helped them generate

predictions which were supported through a scientific understanding of the concept.

100

It is important to note that although the rating scores do show improvement in all

three categories from the first to the third units, the POE experience took place in a different

class for each unit. Therefore, the difference in the student composition of each class, as well

as the content of each unit might also have affected the varying rating scores between units.

Although research questions are unique to every lab situation and class, the skills involved in

their development are not. These skills are transferred from one lab experience to the next

and can be developed and honed through each experience.

“Quality” of the protocols the students generated

To evaluate the “quality” of the protocols students developed for their investigations,

I developed rubrics to measure their rigor, level of detail, and appropriateness to the research

question, on a scale of 1-5 (see Appendix C.3). The results of the data analysis showed that

the rating scores met my expectations for students who were just beginning to experience

development of their own protocols. The results, just below, or at, a level 3 rating were also

appropriate, showing that POE students were able to develop good research designs

following a demonstration, considering that there was not enough time in this study to

engage in a focused discussion on the development of protocols. Aside from these results,

the data did not reveal findings that would add much to the discussion of student-developed

investigations. As a result, I chose not to report on the quality of the protocols. The data that

emerged from POE student-developed protocols can be found in Appendices D.5- D.7.

“Quality” of student observations and data analysis

To evaluate the “quality” of the observations and data analysis reported by students

during their investigations, I developed rubrics to measure their “centrality”, or relevance to

the question under study, the rigor of the data collection, and the level of detail made in the

101

observations, on a scale of 1-5 (see Appendix C.4). Results met my expectations, as was

found in the data analysis for protocols, here also revealing rating scores just below, or at, a

level 3 rating, showing that POE students were able to develop good observations of an

investigation. As in the case of the protocols, there was not enough time in this study to

engage in a focused discussion on observations made during investigations. Once again,

aside from these results, the data did not reveal findings that would add much to the

discussion of student-developed investigations. As a result, I chose not to report on the

quality of the observations/data analysis developed by students. The data that emerged from

POE student-developed observations can be found in Appendices D.8- D.10.

“Quality” of the conclusions produced by each student.

To evaluate the “quality” of the conclusions the students reported as a result of their

self-generated and designed investigations, I developed rubrics to measure their coherence

and central concept articulation (see Appendix C.5). Coherence referred to whether results

and observations from the investigation were appropriately and strongly aligned with the

concept. Central concept articulation referred to whether there was a clearly addressed, deep

understanding of the concept in the conclusion. The average ratings along these criteria (on a

scale of 1-5) received in the class using a POE design for each of the three units is reported in

Table 4.9 below.

Table 4.9- Average rating scores received for conclusions developed in POE classes for each of the three units, out of a possible score of 1-5. POE Unit 1-

Density

POE Unit 2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

POE Unit 3-

Cohesion

Coherence of conclusions

2.1 1.6 2.0

Central Concept Articulation in

1.9 1.9 1.2

102

conclusions

Once again, these low average rating scores are not surprising, given that the POE

students did not experience an explicit lesson that focused on the targeted concept. Unlike

the skills involved in writing research questions, coherence in conclusions will not show

development if the concept embedded in the lesson is not carefully examined. Since this

does not change with experience, the rating scores do not show improvement over time. The

same comments apply to central concept articulation, as indicated in the scores above.

As previously reported, although rubrics were developed for generalizations made by

students in their conclusions (see Appendix C.5), time did not allow for a focused discussion

of it any of the classes involved in this study. Therefore, I did not include an analysis of the

findings with respect to generalizations.

Effects of “seeing the phenomenon in action”

One of the most significant findings that emerged from the data in the units that used

a POE design was that by observing the equipment actively being used in a POE

demonstration, students were able to creatively imagine different ways in which it could be

handled and manipulated, leading to the development of variables, research questions, and

subsequent investigations. This perceived impact of a POE lesson design was explicitly

articulated by a number of students during the final class discussion, including Sohan who

stated that visibly observing a phenomenon taking place, rather than just talking about it,

gave him ideas for investigations that he could conduct. During the discussion, Morgan

supported this view.

Morgan: yeah, you could just change the variable from what you did to something

else.

103

Teacher: so by watching a demo it helped you to think of a variable?

Morgan: yes (transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 1, 10/28/09)

Also during the final class reflection Zeke provided a specific example, describing

that when in Unit Three I shook the penny and made the water wiggle on top, it gave him

ideas like whether water would go up on a “spike” in the center of the coin.

Joel: we got to see you do it first and it gave us more ideas of how to do our own

experiment. (transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 3, 10/28/09)

Students written comments in the final reflection following their journal entry,

collected from all three participating classes, confirmed that when students observed an

active demonstration it helped them to develop their own investigations. The percentage of

students who reported this in their journal entries was 59% in period 1, 47% in period 3, and

50% in period 8.

During interviews this also emerged as a theme among students, some who stated that

the “best learning experiences” during the study occurred from demonstrations.

Aaron: I had a better experiment [in POE] than in all my other [investigations].

Teacher: And why is that?

Aaron: Because the demonstration gave me a really good idea [for his

investigation]. (transcript, Participant Interview, 10/30/09)

The significance of actively observing the demonstration was further reinforced by

students who stated that the units which did not employ an active demonstrations could have

been more helpful to them had they observed the demonstration carried out. During her

interview, Morgan reported that if a demonstration was used in Unit 2 (when she instead

104

experienced L/I), it would have helped her to develop variables. Aaron also supported this

idea during an interview.

Aaron: I think for the density, actually doing the demonstration instead of having it

already set up would have helped.

Teacher: oh really, why is that?

Aaron: because when you see it already set up you can’t really see how it happened,

you just see that it happened. (transcript, Participant Interview, 10/30/09)

Twelve other students made similar statements, indicating that the demonstration helped

them better understand the concept.

Each POE class presented recognizable instances of students observing active

demonstrations which ultimately influenced their capacity to identify potential variables. For

example, in the POE vignette reported earlier, while filling two beakers with water, in

preparation for the density demonstration in Unit 1, one student questioned whether I was

filling them both with warm water. Before dropping the soda cans in, another student asked

if the water levels were exactly the same in each beaker. In another class, before pushing the

inverted beaker underwater in Unit 2, I was asked whether I would be pushing the beaker

down very carefully, or quickly. There was even additional evidence showing that a mistake

or accident occurring during a demonstration can promote a complex scope of question and

discussion concerning variables. In one class, while momentarily diverting my attention

from drops being put on the penny, the water accidentally spilled over the edge prematurely.

This incident resulted in nine to ten students excitedly shouting out potential variables that

may have caused the occurrence.

Effects of engaging in explicit predictions

105

Another theme that emerged from the data was that students perceived that making

predictions prior to a demonstration affected their investigations in a positive way. Although

not included as a journal prompt, students did comment on prediction-making. In their final

reflection journal entry, two students from the period 3 and the period 8 class commented

that prediction-making was valuable to them. Analysis of data from student interviews and

final class reflections provide some additional support that students felt prediction-making

was valuable to them. Interviews revealed students’ perception that prediction-making

helped them to learn by guessing and checking the results against their predictions. For

example, Amy’s prediction in Unit 1 (POE) was firmly and appropriately anchored to her

research question. She predicted that the diet Coke would float due to carbonation. She

gained affirmation for her prediction after observing the diet Coke floating. As a result, her

research question was to investigate the outcome after opening and closing the pop cans. She

explained how predicting and observing helped her:

Amy: Instead of seeing what happened, you guessed and like you learned something

from it, not just like here, here’s what happened. You actually learned from it.

(transcript, Participant Interview, 10/28/09)

From the same data source, Joyce agreed that making predictions helped her. She explained

further that making predictions prompted valuable thought for her.

Joyce: The more you get into an experiment [by making predictions] the more you

think about it before you start and the more you want to get into it, so like if you have

questions and if you have things you wonder about before you start then you’re going

to pay more attention and you’re going to think harder during the experiment.

(transcript, Participant Interview, 10/28/09)

106

In the final class reflection, Joyce acknowledged that making predictions “is a good

way to test yourself”. David strengthened this argument, adding that the POE demonstration

was a valuable tool to his own learning in the classroom, providing the following reasons:

David: As you were setting up I feel like I could answer some of my own questions.

I think if I answer my own questions I learn them better instead of somebody having

them just answer them for me. (transcript, final class reflection, Period 3, 10/28/09)

In sum, the POE lesson design seemed to be conducive to the generation of

worthwhile research questions and protocols, even for novice science students, although not

all of the investigations developed were equally valuable in terms of learning about the

concept under study. Furthermore, two main themes emerged with respect to how students

design, conduct and interpret an investigation following a lesson introduced with a POE

demonstration. First, when students observed the equipment actively being used in a POE

demonstration, it provided the opportunity to creatively imagine different ways in which it

could be handled and manipulated, leading to the development of variables, research

questions, and subsequent investigations. Second, prediction-making prior to a

demonstration was identified by students as a valuable tool toward their learning, providing

opportunities for them to be active, responsible participants in their own learning by

predicting and checking the observed results against their predictions.

4.3.2 How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact students’ interest in

learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

I will begin by summarizing quantitative findings about the extent of students’

interest and engagement in POE demonstrations, as captured by the observer’s “engagement

charts” (see Appendix B.3 for a description of this data collection tool), and the students’

107

own rating of their interest and perceived value of the various units, collected first after each

demonstration, and then after the final reflection when the three units were compared (see

Appendices B.1 and B.2 for the prompts used to solicit this information). I will then discuss

how the explicit predictions made at the beginning of a POE lesson may have affected

students’ interest- as predictions emerged from my analysis of the qualitative data as a design

element that impacted student interest.

Quantitative measures of students’ interest and engagement.

Interest and engagement was identified by the independent observer during each

demonstration through signs, such as student focus exhibited in eye gaze, facial expression,

leaning in to observe the phenomenon, completion of others sentences, suppression of

distraction, and request for clarification (see Appendix B.3 for a complete list of observable

evidence of interest/engagement). A summary of these data is provided in Appendix D and

reproduced in Table 4.10 below showing a high level of engagement (around or above 50%

of the students) in all three POE experiences. Students were also asked to rate their interest,

at the beginning of each unit after predicting, observing, and explaining the demonstrated

phenomenon; using a scale of 1-5, (where 1 represents “not interested at all” and 5 represents

“very interested”- see Appendix B.1). As shown by the summary data reported in Table 4.10

below, students exhibited a high level of interest and engagement on the first day of all POE

units. This conclusion is further confirmed by qualitative data coming from audio tapes of

lessons, independent observer’s field notes, and my teacher’s log. Following their final

reflection, students were asked to rate their interest for the three design models. As seen in

Table 4.10, interest for POE Units One and Two was still rated high by the end of the

intervention, although there was a sizable drop in Unit 3.

108

Table 4.10- Observer’s chart results showing percent of student engagement in each unit and student rating for interest and value of POE experience in each unit, from a possible rating between 1 and 5. Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular

Arrangement of Gas Unit 3-Cohesion

% of students showing engagement from observer’s charts for each POE unit

59% 50% 47%

Average of students’ interest rating given by each student right after the POE demonstration

3.4 4.1 4.0

Average of students’ interest rating in POE lesson given by each student after the final reflection

3.6 4.4 2.4

Average of students’ perceived value rating of POE lesson given by each student after the final reflection

3.5 3.9 2.3

Any differences between the ratings students gave right after the demonstration and

the ratings given after the final reflection, as indicated in Table 4.10, might indicate a

discrepancy between their “expectations” of the lesson versus the actual resulting experience.

The ratings show consistency for Unit 1 and 2, but not for Unit 3. In interpreting these

scores, it is important to note that it is unclear whether students rated their interest in the

phenomenon or the lesson design (POE, NOE, L/I). However, an examination of the three

interviews conducted with period three students (those who experienced POE in Unit 3) does

provide some insight. In her interview, Marissa referred specifically to the investigation and

said that Unit 3 was her least favorite because the investigation time was too short. In

109

contrast, Craig cited the lesson design in Unit 3 as contributing to its rating as the least

rewarding for him:

Craig: The third one [was the least rewarding], because it was good, but I

didn’t really get the science behind it. Even with the experiment I don’t feel

like I learned a ton.

Teacher: Can you pinpoint why you don’t think you learned a lot from the

third one?

Craig: Well, I just don’t think I was taught specifically on the… like how and

why the water kind of stacked and bubbled up like that.

And Joyce referenced her interest in the phenomenon being investigated:

Joyce: The third one [was the least interesting], because dropping water

wasn’t too exciting. You drop it on and yay, it’s done.

Each of the examples cited above indicate a different reason provided by students as

affecting their interest level in the POE lessons. While Marissa explained that time

influenced her interest rating, Craig identified the design format, namely the absence of a

lecture lesson specifically addressing the concept, as important to his rating of the POE

lesson, and Joyce said that the observed phenomenon caused her to rate the POE lesson as

her least interesting. This demonstrates the difficulty in determining whether students are

rating their interest for each unit in the phenomenon or the lesson design.

It is also interesting that the rating score for “value” in each POE lesson was very

similar to the rating score for “interest” following the final class reflection in each class,

possibly indicating that the level of perceived value for each lesson is influenced by the level

of interest upon completion of the unit.

110

Effect of making predictions

One of the most distinct features of a POE experience is the initial prediction-making.

My data suggest that such prediction-making influenced student engagement. Several

students commented during the final class reflection regarding prediction-making, and how it

influenced their personal classroom experience – as illustrated in the following exchange:

Dillon: It makes you more interested because you want to know if your prediction

will be right and you focus more (transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 3,

10/28/09)

Craig: It makes you a little more curious about what the result is going to be and I

think that is a good attribute of any kind of scientist (transcript, Final Class

Reflection, Period 3, 10/28/09)

Joyce: [referring to the Unit using POE] Making a prediction would have definitely

caught our attention, like how many drops of water because it would have made us

interested in… [how close their prediction was to the actual number] (transcript, Final

Class Reflection, Period 3, 10/28/09)

These comments, when taken together with my own observations, suggest that when

students actively predicted the outcome of a demonstration prior to its presentation,

regardless of whether their prediction was accurate, student interest and curiosity in the

lesson and the concept was enhanced.

4.4 Research Question Two

4.4.1 How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event?

111

Parallel to what was done for research question one, I begin this section by

summarizing the most prominent results about the nature and quality of the investigations

designed and conducted by the students after an NOE demonstration, reporting specifically

on (a) the number and nature of the research questions they generated across the three units

when an NOE design was utilized, (b) the rigor, “centrality” and “prediction suitability” of

the research question each student chose to investigate in these situation, (c) the quality of the

protocols the students generated, (d) the nature of their observations and data analysis, and

(e) the “coherence” and “central concept articulation” of the conclusions each student wrote.

I will then document how the most characterizing element of the NOE design – the fact that

the demonstration appears more spontaneous and unplanned – impacted, if any, the students’

scientific investigations.

Number and nature of the research questions generated by the students.

As documented in Appendix D.1, and summarized in Table 4.11 below, all students

were able to generate at least two research questions in each unit.

Table 4.11 - Average number of research questions per student for NOE classes in each unit

Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

Unit 3-Cohesion

Average # of research questions generated by each NOE student

2.3

4.8

4.4

(see Appendix D.1 for more details).

Except for in Unit 1, where students were beginning to learn how to develop research

questions, an average over 4 research questions per student in Units 2 and 3 seem quite

remarkable. The NOE research questions maintained a focus on the demonstration

112

equipment, with 94% of them identifying a piece of physical apparatus used in the

demonstration as a variable (see Appendix D.24 and D.27).

“Quality” of the research questions investigated by each student.

Once again, to evaluate the “quality” of the research questions the students generated

and investigated in the NOE intervention, I will report on the scores associated with the

“rigor”, “centrality”, and “prediction suitability” of the research question each student chose

to investigate, based on the rubrics reported in Appendix C.2 The average ratings along

these criteria (on a scale of 1-5) received in the class using an NOE design for each of the

three units is reported in Table 4.12 below:

Table 4.12- Rating scores for research questions developed in the NOE design in each unit

Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular Arrangement of Gas

Unit 3-Cohesion

Rigor of chosen research question

4.4 3.7 3.1

Centrality of chosen research question

4.0 3.7 3.1

Prediction suitability of chosen research question

2.1 1.8 1.9

(see Appendix D.2-D.4 for a comparison of these ratings across units and classes).

Rigor and centrality ratings are quite high across the three units. Rating scores from

3-4 indicate a high level of achievement, especially for students who have not had a great

deal of experience developing research questions. The rigor and centrality ratings are also

quite consistent within each unit. As mentioned in the case of the POE classes, the physical

demonstration may have contributed to the development of rigorous research questions. The

high ratings with respect to centrality are especially remarkable, as NOE students observed

and explained phenomenon, identified variables and developed research questions, all

113

without a detailed discussion of the concept. This lack of direct and relevant background

information made it more difficult to develop research questions central to the concept of the

lesson. In contrast, the prediction suitability ratings are low, suggesting that regardless of the

units and class, students lacked the sophistication needed to apply scientific reasoning to their

prediction, especially without an explicit introduction to the concept. The difference in the

student composition of each class also could be reflective of the varying rating scores

between units.

“Quality” of the protocols the students generated

To evaluate the “quality” of the protocols students developed for their investigations,

I developed rubrics to measure their rigor, level of detail, and appropriateness to the research

question, on a scale of 1-5 (see Appendix C.3). The results of the data analysis showed that

the rating scores met my expectations for students who were just beginning to experience

development of their own protocols. The results, just below, or at, a level 3 rating were also

appropriate, showing that NOE students were able to develop good research designs

following a demonstration, considering that there was not enough time in this study to

engage in a focused discussion on the development of protocols. Aside from these results,

the data did not reveal findings that would add much to the discussion of student-developed

investigations. As a result, I chose not to report further on the quality of the protocols. The

data that emerged from NOE student-developed protocols can be found in Appendices D.5-

D.7.

“Quality” of student observations and data analysis

To evaluate the “quality” of the observations and data analysis reported by students

during their investigations, I developed rubrics to measure their “centrality”, or relevance to

114

the question under study, the rigor of the data collection, and the level of detail made in the

observations, on a scale of 1-5 (see Appendix C.4). As it was the case for the protocols,

results met my expectations, with rating scores just below, or at, a level 3 rating, showing

that NOE students were able to develop good observations of an investigation. As in the case

of the protocols, there was not enough time in this study to engage in a focused discussion on

observations made during investigations. Once again, aside from these results, the data did

not reveal findings that would add much to the discussion of student-developed

investigations. As a result, I chose not to report further on the quality of the

observations/data analysis developed by students. The data that emerged from NOE student-

developed observations can be found in Appendices D.8- D.10.

“Quality” of the conclusions produced by each student.

As in the case of POE, the “quality” of the conclusions the students achieved as a

result of their self-generated and designed investigations were evaluated using the rubrics I

developed to measure their coherence and central concept articulation (see Appendix C.5).

The average ratings along these criteria (on a scale of 1-5) received in the class engaged in an

NOE design for each of the three units is reported in Table 4.13 below; see Appendix D.11

and D.12 for more details.

Table 4.13- Average rating scores received for conclusions developed in NOE classes for each of the three units, out of a possible score of 1-5. Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular

Arrangement of Gas Unit 3-Cohesion

Coherence of conclusions

2.6 1.5 1.8

Central concept articulation of conclusions

2.2 1.2 1.0

115

Once again, while these rating scores are low, they are not surprising, given that the

NOE students did not experience a lesson that focused on the targeted scientific concept.

The fact that these scores actually decreased over time suggested that they were influenced

by the content of the unit. And, unlike the skills involved in writing research questions,

students were not able to develop greater ability to achieve coherence in conclusions over

time, possibly because this ability requires a more explicit discussion of the concept, which

was not part of the NOE design in this intervention. The same rationale applies to central

concept articulation, as indicated in the scores above.

4.4.2 How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact students’ interest in learning

about the scientific phenomenon under study?

Once again, I will begin by summarizing the main quantitative results about the

students’ interest and engagement in NOE demonstrations, as captured by the observer’s

“engagement charts” (see Appendix B.3 for a description of this data collection tool), and the

students’ own rating of their interest and perceived value of the various units- collected first

at the end of each demonstration and then after the final reflection when the three units were

compared (see Appendices B.1 and B.2 for the prompts used to solicit this information). I

then document, using the previous data combined with other relevant qualitative data, how

some characterizing elements of the NOE design may have affected the previous results, in

particular spontaneity and surprise.

Quantitative measures of students’ interest and engagement.

The most prominent finding related to this question was the observable student

behavior showing a high level of curiosity and interest during NOE lessons. As seen in

Table 4.14 below, in these situations most of the students exhibited considerable overt

116

physical and verbal signs of enthusiasm and excitement for the lesson, such as making

spontaneous guesses about the discrepant event and expressing a desire to try the

demonstration themselves. Students’ rating of the units where they had experienced an NOE

design was also overall quite high, also illustrated by Table 4.14 below, and showed by the

change over time (i.e., the demonstration versus after the final reflection).

Table 4.14- Observer’s chart results showing percent of student engagement in each unit and student rating for interest and value of NOE experience in each unit, from a possible rating between 1 and 5. Unit 1-Density Unit 2- Molecular

Arrangement of Gas Unit 3-Cohesion

% of students showing engagement from observer’s charts

62%

56%

57%

Average of students’ interest rating given by each student right after the NOE demonstration

3.3

4.1

4.1

Average of students’ interest rating in the NOE lesson given by each student after the final reflection

3.2

4.5

4.1

Average of students’ perceived value rating of the NOE lesson given by each student after the final reflection

3.4

3.6

4.4

Any differences between the ratings students gave right after the demonstration and

the ratings given after the final reflection, as indicated in Table 4.14, might indicate a

discrepancy between their “expectations” of the lesson versus the actual resulting experience.

However, the interest ratings remained remarkably consistent for each unit. Once again, the

NOE student’s value ratings were also strikingly close to their interest ratings, possibly

117

indicating that the level of value for each lesson is influenced by the level of interest upon

completion of the unit.

These findings are further supported by qualitative data coming from audio tapes of

lessons, independent observer’s field notes, and my teacher’s log. As illustrated in the

previous vignette of the Unit 1 NOE lesson, student speech pattern in the NOE models was

typically enthusiastic and often overlapping. Although the class discussions were

unrestrained, they contributed to the development of the subsequent investigations.

Effect of characteristic elements of the NOE design: “surprise” and “spontaneity”

The spontaneity inherent in the NOE design seems to have impacted student interest

and engagement. The beginning of the NOE lesson format was not rigidly structured. This

informal design allowed for student engagement to naturally occur and develop. The use of a

discrepant event as the observed phenomenon prompted surprise, bewilderment and

curiosity, all of which encouraged interest and led to an inquiry investigation in a natural

way. Additionally, the informal beginning of the NOE lesson evoked some students’

curiosity, interest, and excitement in such a manner that it was clearly seen and heard by

others in the classroom, contributing to the ensuing discussion. The NOE design allowed for

emotion to be unbridled, animated and expressed in ways that could be shared with the entire

class. Discrepant events were essential components to this design, providing the stimulus for

student emotion. Students were seen and heard to express their wonder, confusion and

excitement, even commenting on personal experiences relating to the observed phenomenon.

Ultimately, this contributed to student motivation for pursuing an investigation in an effort to

explain the observed phenomenon, or questions relating to it.

118

For example, in Unit 3 (NOE) immediately after being seated, Zeke’s attention was

captured by the image projected on the Smart Board, a penny with a bubble of water on it.

Zeke: ooh, ooh, there’s a blob of water on that thing right there [pointing to

the projected image]… it’s sticking, the water’s staying there, it’s not running

off …. that’s so cool. I didn’t know water did that! .... what happens when

you poke it?

Bart: Why does that work on a small scale, but you couldn’t take like a giant

penny and pour tons of water on it, and it would stay, like a giant bubble? [he

is referring to a jumbo size coin that many of the students have seen used in

the Magic Club at school]

Teacher: that’s a great question, but have you tested that?

Bart: no

Teacher: how do you know you can’t, then? [he shrugs his shoulders]

Monisha: Let’s figure it out! [three other students yell out “yeah!”]

Paul: try it with a quarter!

Shana: let’s try it right now!

Teacher: These are great ideas! If you want to test these ideas… we can do

that if you want to? [several students respond “yes!” and “yeah!”]

Carrie: yay!

Sohan: I want to do it!

Wesley: Big penny first! (transcript, Class Audio, 10/22/09)

119

Following this discussion, of the 16 students in the class, four chose to investigate the

phenomenon using a coin other than a penny, four chose to use a jumbo coin, and two

wanted to poke the bubble in various ways to observe the outcome.

4.5 Research Question Three

4.5.1 What are similarities and differences in how students design, conduct and interpret

their own investigation in the three scenarios (POE, NOE, L/I)?

Similar to the structure used for the previous research questions, I begin this section

by comparing quantitative results across the three main design options considered (i.e., POE,

NOE and Lecture/Inquiry, or L/I) regarding (a) the number and nature of the research

questions the students were able to generate, (b) the rigor, “centrality” and “prediction

suitability” of the research question each student chose to investigate, and (c) the

“coherence” and “central concept articulation” of the conclusions each student wrote. I have

chosen not to report on protocols and observations/data analysis as the three lesson designs

did not seem to affect much the nature and quality of the component of the students’

investigations.

Consistent to the focus of this research question, in the tables that follow I will report

the averages across units when the same design was used (i.e., POE, NOE or L/I,

respectively). I will also identify elements that emerged from my analysis as possibly

affecting these results and comment on their impact. More specifically, I will report on the

significance of the placement of demonstrations within a lesson, the role of novelty, students’

perceived value of class discussion and note-taking, and the role played by students’ past

personal experiences.

Number and nature of the research questions generated by the students.

120

As documented in Appendix D.1, and summarized in Table 4.15 below, on average,

all students were able to generate at least one investigable research question in each lesson

design. On average, the number of questions was highest in the NOE scenario, followed by

POE, and finally L/I, although students in the Unit 3 POE lesson were able to generate more

research questions than students in the NOE lesson in the same unit (see Appendix D.1).

Table 4.15- Average number of research questions per student for all three classes, cumulatively, in each lesson design POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry

Average # of research questions generated by each student

3.2

3.9

1.3

(see Appendix D.1 for more details).

Although students developed variables and research questions in each model (i.e.,

POE, NOE and L/I), the analysis of the results reported in the previous vignette and in

Appendices D.23 - D.28 show some interesting differences. As the L/I students were not

exposed to any phenomenon demonstrated in the classroom, their variables and subsequent

investigations were not limited to the physical apparatus involved in any one demonstration,

as the POE and NOE student variables and research questions were. Instead, I noted through

class transcripts that the L/I students developed variables and research questions founded

mainly on past personal experiences explained in class discussion, as well as on picture and

video images observed in the lesson, as discussed below.

It is interesting to note that, across all three designs, observations of a phenomenon,

whether it occurred in the context of a demonstration, video, or even a picture, impacted

student’s inquiry by focusing their attention on particular aspects or variables, ultimately

121

influencing their research questions. In two of the L/I classes, 100% of the student-

developed research questions were founded on activities observed during the video shown as

part of the lecture (see Table 4.3 and Appendix D.28). For example, in her final class

reflection, Karen reported that she got the idea for her investigation of water beads on wax

paper in Unit 3 directly from seeing it in the class video, which showed a child rolling a bead

of water on a sheet of wax paper by tilting the paper. The L/I students in Unit 1 developed a

large number of research questions involving ice after observing a picture of an iceberg

floating on water I used at the beginning of my PowerPoint presentation. The L/I class was

the only class exposed to a visual image of an iceberg, which sparked discussion in class that

led to the development of research questions. There were no research questions regarding ice

developed by students in either the POE or NOE Unit 1 classes (see Tables 4.1 and 4.5).

Further support for this finding emerges from data for the Unit 2 L/I class, which was

shown a video that included an image of a child blowing up a balloon (while neither the POE

nor the NOE classes in Unit 2 were visually exposed to a balloon). It is noteworthy that 76%

of L/I students in Unit 2 investigated a research question involving a balloon, and 41% of the

students included at least one research question involving a balloon when writing as many

research questions as possible in journal entry question five. In contrast, none of the students

in the POE class developed research questions that involved a balloon. One of the NOE

students actually did bring up and briefly discuss the use of a balloon in class discussion,

which was noted in the students journal entry (as documented in Appendix D.24), although it

was the only one and no one actually followed through and conducted any investigation that

involved a balloon in that NOE class. A similar experience occurred in Unit 3. The L/I class

in that unit watched a video that included the image of a beaker that had been filled with

122

water over its rim, forming a reverse meniscus. Neither the POE nor NOE classes observed

this phenomenon in either video or live demonstration, although it was discussed in the NOE

class. Only the L/I class included research questions in their journal entries that were

concerned with this phenomenon (as documented in Appendices D.26- D.28). These

findings suggest that observations of phenomenon or equipment in use influences student’s

development of variables and research questions, regardless of the lesson design chosen.

This may help to explain an observation regarding the demonstration in Unit 3 (Water

Drops on a Penny), where students observed a demonstration in which water was dropped

onto a penny from an eyedropper. In this unit, 100% of NOE students and 75% of POE

students developed research questions directly involving a coin with liquid placed on top.

However, this only occurred with 14% of the L/I students. The phenomenon had been

brought up in the L/I class discussion, yet there was no visual observation of a coin and an

eyedropper. The POE and NOE students seemed to be rigidly aligned with the mental image

of the coin used in the demonstration, preventing them from developing investigations

utilizing materials and equipment that did not involve currency (as documented in

Appendices D.26- D.28).

Another experience in Unit 3 adds further support to this argument. One of the L/I

students verbally conceived a research question involving an overflow can, a piece of

equipment that had been previously used in a lab but had not been discussed in this unit. The

class was having difficulty understanding the student’s idea. My attempts to explain the

research question and describe a procedure for it were unsuccessful because students were

unable to develop a mental illustration of what this experiment would look like. I reached for

an overflow can and physically set it up in front of the class. This direct observation

123

triggered ideas for more research questions involving an overflow can. Several hands

promptly rose. Similarly, I think demonstrations trigger ideas simply through direct

observation. No other class developed research questions using an overflow can (as

documented in Appendices D.26- D.28).

Another example comes from Unit 2, in which a weight was used on top of the

inverted beaker to hold it in place during the NOE and POE demonstrations. Between the

two, there were more NOE students who explained in their journal entries that the weight

caused the paper to remain dry in the inverted beaker. Although the weight was also used in

the POE demonstration, it was only used to hold the beaker in place during the discussion

that followed. Initially, the beaker was put into the water and after a moment pulled out so

the paper could be inspected. Students in this group were not asked to explain the

phenomena until after the weight was put in place, so both groups actually did see the weight

before attempting to explain. The difference between the two observations seems to be that

POE students were able to directly observe the use of the weight, but the NOE students did

not have this advantage. The NOE students walked into the classroom and observed the

inverted beaker already in place with the weight on top. NOE students were basing

explanations on what they observed directly in front of them and since they were not seeing

equipment “in use” they were left to imagine in their own minds what its actual purpose

might be. As a result, 81% of the NOE students in Unit 2 developed research questions

involving the weight used on top of the beaker, compared to only 7% (1 out of 14 students in

the class) of the POE students developed a research question on this piece of equipment (as

documented in Appendices D.23 and D.24).

124

One final example comes from the Unit 1 research questions presented in the

vignettes earlier in this chapter. In this unit, and shown in the previous vignettes, 33% of the

research questions developed in the POE class involved variables using the pop cans,

compared to only 21% of research questions in the NOE class. I think this is because during

the Predict phase focus was directed to the pop cans through explicit discussion of them. The

NOE students saw the same materials, but their lesson did not include a detailed discussion

of the pop cans, resulting in far fewer research questions regarding them and a greater range

of questions for all observed materials.

“Quality” of the research questions investigated by each student.

To compare the “quality” of the research questions generated when using each design

I employed the same rubrics to measure the “rigor”, “centrality”, and “prediction suitability”

of the research questions chosen for investigation in each unit. As a reminder, “rigor”

referred to whether the research question was scientifically sound, investigable, and

demonstrated depth; “centrality” referred to whether it was central to the concept of the

lesson; and “prediction suitability” referred to whether the predictions were appropriately

aligned with the research question and supported by scientific reasoning. As a means of

comparison, on a scale of 1-5, the average ratings from all three lesson designs are reported

below, in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16- Average rating scores of research questions for all three classes, cumulatively, in each lesson design, out of a possible score between 1 and 5. POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry

Rigor of chosen research question

3.1 3.7 2.5

Centrality of chosen research question

3.4 3.6 3.3

Prediction suitability of chosen

2.0 1.9 2.2

125

research question

While the number of students involved is too small for the differences showed in all

of these tables to be statistically significant, it is interesting to note that POE and NOE

students scored higher than L/I students, with respect to rigor, with the NOE classes scoring

the highest. As mentioned earlier, this could be due to a more detailed discussion on research

question development in the POE and NOE classes. However, the L/I classes scored

somewhat higher with respect to prediction suitability, which could be explained by the fact

that they had experienced more in-depth lessons on the science concept than either POE or

NOE.

“Quality” of the conclusions produced by each student.

To evaluate the “quality” of the conclusions the students achieved as a result of their

self-generated and designed investigations, I employed the same rubrics to measure

coherence and central concept articulation, where “coherence” referred to whether results and

observations from the investigation were appropriately and strongly aligned with the concept

and “central concept articulation” referred to whether there was a clearly addressed, deep

understanding for the concept in the conclusion. As a means of comparison, Table 4.17

below reports the average ratings from all three lesson designs (on a scale of 1-5).

Table 4.17- Average rating scores of conclusions for all three classes, cumulatively, in each lesson design, out of a possible score between 1 and 5. POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry

Coherence of conclusions

1.9 1.9 2.4

Central Concept Articulation of conclusions

1.6

1.4 2.4

126

Closer examination of these data, journal entries in particular, revealed some

difference between lessons using demonstrations and those involving lecture/inquiry. Unlike

POE and NOE students, L/I students consistently attempted to use the concept of the lesson

to explain their observations in their conclusions (as documented Appendices D.19 and

D.22). Below are three examples from each of the L/I classes; one example from each unit:

Mandel: I obseved (sic) that when you mix food coloring in with the vegetable

oil drops of it sunk to the bottom. When it was just vegetable oil it all just

floated to the top. So that made the food coloring mixed with the vegetable

oil more dense than just the regular vegetable oil by itself. (journal entry, L/I

Unit 1, 10/1/09)

Bart: The small beaker with the sponge ball in it stayed completely empty, or

dry on the inside even when put totally underwater. This proves that air takes

up spce (sic) because it took up all the space in the beaker/test tube an didn’t

allow water to get in. (journal entry, L/I Unit 2, 10/16/09)

Chad: The water has more cohsion (sic) than the vegetable oil. I think this is

because that vegetable oil has more liquads (sic) in it than one. That would

effect (sic) cohesion because the molucles (sic) must attract to a different (sic)

molucle (sic). (journal entry, L/I Unit 3, 10/22/09)

Data summarizing the results showing the percentage of students who attempted to

explain observations and conclusions based on the concept in each lesson design for each

unit can be seen in Table 4.18, below. These data are derived from student conclusions

reported earlier in the descriptive vignettes, and from Appendices D.17- D.22.

Table 4.18- Average percentage of students using scientific concept in conclusions for all three classes, cumulatively, in each lesson design of each unit

127

POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry

Unit 1 (Density) 44% 50% 69%

Unit 2 (Molecular Arrangement of Gas)

23% 6% 50%

Unit 3 (Cohesion) 24% 7% 75%

These data first of all shows that the content of the lesson may affect the students’

ability to draw conclusions. The consistently higher results in L/I classes, however, also

suggest that the more detailed instruction of the science concept that the L/I classes

experienced in their lessons on the first day of each unit may have better equipped those

students to speak about the concept and identify observations based on the concept in their

conclusions.

Value of class discussions

The value of class discussion was volunteered in several student comments. In their

final reflection journal entries, six students reported value in class discussion from the period

1 class. This was also reported, in the same journal entries, by one person from each of the

other two classes. Discussion was reportedly an asset to the development of variables,

investigations, and research questions, as suggested by students’ comments in the final class

reflection, as well. Analysis of follow-up interviews revealed that class discussions were

valuable towards the development of student-designed investigations, regardless of whether

the approach was POE, NOE, or L/I:

Amy: We had a big discussion and I really understood… and that gave me ideas for

what to do for experiments. [Units could be improved] if we kind of talked more

128

about that topic that would give more ideas to do experiments on. (transcript,

Participant Interview, 10/28/09)

Amy continued to explain that class discussion was valuable to the development of variables

in particular. Craig recounted how a class discussion woven into a traditional lecture format

can benefit learning in the classroom, as it did in the Lecture/Inquiry (L/I) lesson he

experienced in Unit 1 (density).

Craig: the PowerPoint and all the notes were up on the board and it was easier to

understand in the discussion and kinda got our minds thinking for what we might do

for an experiment… and that was the easiest for me to learn. (transcript, Participant

Interview, 10/29/09)

Value of note-taking

Craig’s comment in the previous quote identifies note-taking as a positive feature of

the L/I approach. Morgan similarly recognized note-taking as a valuable strategy because it

“demanded attention.” Notes reportedly also served as a reference, providing detailed

information that could be reviewed out of class. Eleven students in the period 3 class

acknowledged in their final reflection journal entry that this was a key feature of their L/I

experience, making that particular unit their most rewarding learning experience. Comments

were also made during the final class reflection:

Rick: [Referring to Unit 1, where L/I was used, as his most rewarding learning

experience] because we wrote down a lot of notes and with Unit 2 or 3 if I forget

something I can’t look back at notes. (transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 3,

10/28/09)

129

Katie: [Also referred to Unit 1, which was L/I for her class, as her most rewarding

learning experience] because we took notes and I could look back. (transcript, Final

Class Reflection, Period 3, 10/28/09)

Additional support came from follow-up interviews:

Craig: if we forgot anything then we could just turn back to our notes and we could

study off that for the test [emphasizing this could not be done in other units].

(transcript, Participant Interview, 10/29/09)

The impact of Craig’s learning experience in the classroom without the note-taking

experience became clear during his interview when he referred to Unit 3 (POE) and

explained that “it was good, but I didn’t really get the science behind it”. He added that it

would have been helpful had there been notes to explain the science behind the phenomena.

This was further indicated by Joyce’s comments.

Joyce: we had to like write it down as we were listening, so we had to listen, we had

to pay attention. [Referring to PowerPoint presentations], They are not the most

interesting, but it’s a good way to learn because you see it in writing and the notes can

be referred to later. (transcript, Participant Interview, 10/28/09)

Joyce also tied together the value of note-taking experiences with class discussion.

Joyce: you showed us like pictures and stuff and since there was just a lot to talk

about, I remember when we had the discussion in class we had a lot to say.

(transcript, Participant Interview, 10/28/09)

Role played by past personal experiences

In final class reflections, final reflection journal entries, and follow-up interviews

students reported that class discussion had helped them to recall past personal experiences

130

(PPE) as they related to the concept at hand, helping students connect their lives to the class

lesson. In the final class reflections, several students identified this connection as beneficial

to their conceptual understanding. For example, during a class discussion of air taking up

space, Bart recalled taking baths while playing with cups as a child. During the final class

reflection, he recounted that he was able to relate both Unit 2 and 3 to personal experiences.

The L/I lessons consistently generated greater numbers of PPE’s for students than did the

NOE and POE lessons. Students revealed through journal entries, interviews and final class

reflections that PPE’s helped them to understand the concept by making the lesson and the

concept more personally meaningful. In addition, analysis of the teacher’s log and class

audio revealed that PPE’s were used rather extensively by students. Every lesson in this

intervention involved PPE’s discussed by students. Based on transcripts of the class

discussion, I noted that in every unit, the classes engaged in the NOE design involved the

least number of different PPE’s (1-7), while the L/I classes involved the most (7-16). These

data come from transcripts of class audio. Data and observation also revealed that students

were using PPE’s to develop an understanding for the concept and as a communication tool

to elucidate the concept.

Zeke: [expressing his knowledge of the behavior of gas particles- Unit 2, L/I] well,

we use a smoke machine in our haunted house and when it comes out it kinda goes up

and out. They sort of start out compact and then they expand. (transcript, Class

Audio, 10/14/09)

Teacher: can someone tell me about any experiences in your life that you’ve ever

seen that can prove to you that gas takes up space or has volume?

131

Monisha: I was going to say if you’re boiling water and the pot is covered and you lift

it up and you see the steam coming up. (transcript, Class Audio, 10/14/09)

In another instance, Amy related her personal experience to another that Bart had spoken

about. Still confused, Morgan questions the experience. Jake attempts to help her

understand through another personal experience, which is followed by another description of

a personal experience by Amy who further tries to explain the concept to Morgan.

Amy: like an example of what Bart was talking about you know how in those pirate

movies where they like take a boat [three or four students yell out “oh, yeah” very

excited] and they like put it on top of their head and they walk underneath the water

and there’s still air trapped under there [One student excitedly yells out “like Pirates

of the Caribbean!”].

Morgan: wouldn’t it fill though because the water would come up?

Jake: [Referring to the “air bubble” trapped under the boat] The bubble won’t come

out. I once made a diving bell for an ant. [He recounts how he tied a rock to a film

canister with an ant inside, put it underwater in his pool and the ant stayed alive

because the air doesn’t escape]

Amy: Yeah, like when you’re underwater and you breathe out and that little bubble

comes out? It has to take up space, because it pushes the water away and makes that

little bubble. (transcript, Class Audio, 10/14/09)

Additionally, five other students reported in their final reflection journal entries that

PPE’s made the lesson more interesting and helped them to generate ideas used to develop

their investigations.

132

4.5.2 What are similarities and differences in students’ interest in learning about the

scientific phenomenon under study in the three scenarios (POE, NOE, L/I)?

According to the independent observer’s charts, students exhibited the highest level

of interest in the NOE lessons, closely followed by POE, as shown by the summary data

reported in Table 4.19 below and in Appendix D.13. However, student ratings for each

lesson design did not reveal a notable difference between POE and L/I , although students

consistently rated NOE higher when asked to “evaluate” interest and “value” of each unit

after the final reflection.

Table 4.19- Observer’s chart results showing percent of student engagement and student rating for interest and value for all three classes, cumulatively, in each lesson design of each unit, out of a possible rating between 1 and 5. POE NOE Lecture/Inquiry

% of students showing engagement from observer’s charts

52%

58%

31%

Average of students’ interest rating given be each student right after the demonstration/lecture

3.8

3.9

3.8

Average of students’ interest rating for each unit given by each student after the final reflection

3.4

4.0

3.4

Average of students’ perceived value rating given by each student after the final reflection

3.2

3.8

3.5

Data collected from student interviews and final class reflections revealed that

demonstrations enhanced interest and curiosity for the lesson and the concept, subsequently

cultivating student motivation to engage in investigative experiences:

133

Marissa: you actually do it and it makes me want to try it (transcript, Participant

Interview, 10/29/09)

Several students also indicated, through the final class reflection and in their final

journal entries, that they found demonstrations to “boost curiosity” and more “interesting”

than lecture lessons, notes, and PowerPoint presentations through their ability to “catch

everybody’s eye”. This curiosity seemed to furnish student motivation for the advancement

of their learning through their own investigations.

Cameron: As soon as you did it so many questions popped into my mind [referring to

the demonstrations]. (transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 8, 10/28/09)

Marissa 8A: When you showed us the demo [referring to Unit 2, POE] a ton of

questions went through my head and I wanted to find out a bunch of things.

(transcript, Final Class Reflection, Period 8, 10/28/09)

There was also evidence in the findings that student interest generated by

demonstrations led to behavior out of the classroom that indicated continued interest and

self-directed engagement with the demonstration or the concept. Final reflection journal

entry analysis revealed that 27% of period 1, 53% of period 3 and 36% of period 8 students

tried or discussed the demonstration experience out of the classroom. I was unable to break

this down into POE and NOE demonstrations, because this was not always specified in the

journal entries. However, in each instance, the observed demonstrations were the focus of

the extracurricular experience, leading me to conclude that demonstrations lead students to

communicate their experiences out of class.

For example, as reported in my teacher’s log, Joel and Katie both recounted that

following Unit 1 they had made density columns at home to show their parents. Also from

134

the teacher’s log, Talicia described to me that she had done the penny demonstration from

Unit 3 at home to show her parents. She had taken a picture of it on her cell phone and

showed it to me. Finally, Bart was very excited to show the Unit 2 demonstration to another

student after school.

Value of novelty

With regards to POE and NOE, students reported that the most rewarding learning

experiences were gained from unfamiliar phenomenon, or phenomenon they had never

observed, and the least rewarding experiences resulted from concepts or phenomenon that

was familiar, already known, or had already been observed.

During an interview Aaron said that Unit 1 (NOE) was least rewarding for him

because he “already knew about it”. This was a feeling echoed by other students.

Marissa: [Unit 3- L/I- was the least rewarding learning experience because I] already

learned about it and so I already knew what would happen. (transcript, Participant

Interview, 10/29/09)

Additional students reported similar views during the final class reflection. Abriana

stated she liked Unit 3 because she had never seen the demonstrated phenomenon. Wesley,

Natalie, Monisha and Kaylee all shared this response. Shana liked Unit 2 because she had

seen a cup floating on water at home in her kitchen sink, but did not know that “if you put it

under water it would do that”. Talicia similarly liked Unit 2 because “it was something

different that I had never seen before”. Ian and Solomon did not like Unit 3 because he had

already seen the phenomenon before, on a rainy day. Alternately, Ahmed liked Unit 3

because he had never seen the phenomenon before. Several students ‘liked’ Unit 2 because

they had never experienced the observed phenomenon. Brett added that Unit 2 helped him

135

most because he had already seen the phenomenon in Unit 1 and 3 and he knew how they

worked, but Unit 2 was new and so he had questions. Alicia explained how past experiences

influenced her interest:

Alicia: (Unit 2- POE was her least rewarding experience because she had already)

seen it a lot. (As a result, she) knew what was going to happen. (transcript, Participant

Interview, 10/28/09)

Additional support comes from Aaron, who liked Unit 2 because he tried something

in his investigation that he never thought would work and, to his surprise, it did. He found

that if there’s a hole on the side of the cup, the water would stop at the hole. Alena liked the

demonstration in Unit 2 because she had seen it before, but didn’t think it could really

happen. She thought it was “fake”. Selma liked the demonstration in Unit 2 because she had

seen it once before but didn’t understand how the paper could remain dry, and “it was cool to

learn how”. Chad said that he had seen the Unit 3 demonstrated phenomenon in faucets, but

didn’t understand the phenomenon and thought that when cohesion was explained in the

lecture it helped him to understand. He added that having a personal experience of it was

more helpful than a demonstration. Morgan liked the Unit 3 demonstration, saying she had

seen this done before with water, but never with vegetable oil. She was surprised at the

outcome when vegetable oil was used in her investigation.

According to data collected in the final class reflection journal entries, 45% of period

1, 24% of period 3 and 57% of period 8 students felt less interested in a unit if they had “seen

it before” or more interested if they had “never seen it before”.

4.6 Discussion

136

In the next few sections, I will discuss the findings previously reported in this chapter,

so as to better address the overarching question informing this study, that is “how can

demonstrations be designed so as to most effectively promote students’ engagement in

scientific inquiry?” Using this previously reported data, along with other relevant qualitative

data, I will comment on the findings by providing some interpretations and summarizing

their implications for designing demonstrations that can motivate and support student-led

investigations. I will begin with a discussion of the observed differences, as reported earlier,

in student’s cognitive and behavioral engagement between POE and NOE designs, and offer

a possible explanation for such differences. I will then summarize and discuss the value of

novelty, the key role that observation of phenomenon “in action” can present to students

towards the development of their investigations, and the value of using a discrepant event as

the core of a demonstration. I will conclude with some observations about the role played by

the position of the demonstration within a lesson, before drawing some conclusion about

what I learned on how to design demonstration-based lessons conducive to students inquiry.

Comparing students’ observed engagement in POE and NOE

I have personally observed a striking difference in student reaction during the

observation of demonstrated phenomenon in POE and NOE lessons. Namely, the POE

students in the study have shown more suppressed reactions. For example, in the Unit 1 POE

the pop can demonstration produced far more subdued reaction than observed in the NOE

class. At first, I thought this perceived difference may be a difference in student’s interest

and excitement. However, I believe this difference may have resulted from students’

demeanor at the time of the demonstration, as they were involved and engaged in the lesson,

asking and answering questions in an attempt to better understand the lesson, and

137

thoughtfully observing the demonstration because they knew they were being asked to do so.

These were observations made by both myself and the independent observer during POE

lessons.

Students were intently focused on the presentation of the demonstration and the way

the equipment was handled, in anticipation of the outcome. Their focus was concentrated on

the demonstration, in part because of the significance that was attributed to it. The structure

of a POE format heightens the students’ sense of responsibility. In this setting, student

expectations rise, in contrast to the traditional demonstration model in which student

responsibility is minimal and entirely relinquished following its presentation. In a POE,

students are held to a higher level of accountability to question and learn from the observed

phenomenon through self-designed investigations and self-directed methods. This can result

in increased cognitive engagement by students. A demonstration presented in this format is

perceived as more significant because the entire lesson that follows will be based on it. The

experience becomes more critical and significant to the student. When a demonstration is

approached as the focal point of the lesson, it is collectively viewed as purposeful, and can be

a valuable strategy to launch into an investigation.

In the POE experience, when students were asked to predict the outcome to the

demonstration and to type this prediction in their journal entry, it established a more focused,

academic classroom atmosphere. Prior to its presentation, I had spoken to the POE students

about the significance of the demonstration to the lesson that would follow. The mindset of

these students was one of analysis, prediction, and expectation for what might occur. The

prediction phase heightened the significance of the lesson and seemed to establish focus and

evidence of cognitive engagement.

138

But, I do think some, or even many, of the students who appeared unemotional during

demonstrations were actually fully immersed in the situation, cognitively engaged and

motivated by interest. The idea is similar to the mental state referred to as “flow”.

Personally, I have experienced this phenomenon during the presentation of a magic trick,

when spectators are so mentally drawn into, and ultimately so perplexed from their

observations that they appear unemotional. Since they know they are about to experience a

magic trick, spectators cognitively engage themselves, anticipating startling phenomenon to

occur. It is only after they have a moment to process and consider the observed phenomenon

that they become animated and excited, trying to make sense of their observations. I believe

POE students were approaching the anticipated demonstration in the same way. They had

been cognitively drawn into, and engaged in, the event about to unfold because of the way I

had established its significance.

POE students may not have verbally said “wow”, but that is not an indication that

they were not thinking it. It may have been just as likely for a student to lean to his/her

partner and say “wow, check that out” in this structured format, than for that same student to

yell out “wow” in a less structured environment, such as an NOE lesson. For example, I

noticed that in one POE class there was a student who whispered to her partner, “I saw this

before, I saw this before”. But, she did not do it in a disappointing way, but rather an excited

way.

In contrast, the atmosphere of an NOE presentation is informal, unintentional, and

inadvertent. My personal observations through this study lead me to believe that it is

perceived by the student as such and that this perception affects engagement and learning

outcomes. Student demeanor during an NOE, especially at its outset, was displayed and

139

observed as unrestrained, unbridled engagement. Students were observed to be much more

vocally and physically engaged. Their excitement and energy was high, essentially resulting

from the approach; the perceived disposition and mindset of the teacher. This experience is

more student-centered than the teacher-centered POE experience.

In sum, I would conclude that both POE and NOE demonstrations involving

discrepant events are likely to trigger a high level of students’ engagement and interest,

although it may take different expressions.

The key role of observation of a phenomenon “in action”

This study has shown that observation of phenomenon influences student-developed

variables and research questions. As mentioned in Chapter Three, students in each of the L/I

lessons were exposed to either a picture or video in class, which influence the type of

variables and research questions they developed. It might be questioned whether images

such as these presented during a lecture provides an experience similar to an NOE. This was

a situation that was not recognized prior to this study. Although this is an issue which needs

to be further addressed, from my personal experiences I think there is a difference. An NOE

occurs “live”, in the observer’s physical space. An NOE always has physical artifacts in the

observer’s actual living space. Another distinctive characteristic of an NOE is that these

artifacts are accessible to the observers for their use. These seem to be the distinguishing

characteristics that make each of the L/I videos and pictures different from the NOE

demonstrations.

From my experiences in this study, I think that when students see an image, either in

a picture or video, that sparks their interest or curiosity, which in turn causes them to offer

some comment or question. Once that happens, a discussion ensues which settles the image

140

in more student minds. The image, no matter how quickly it might appear, is reinforced

through a series of events and develops into a focal point for some students. Data analysis

from this study has shown, however, that demonstrations in which the physical apparatus

shared the physical space of the observer, as in POE and NOE, had much more influence on

student-developed variables and research questions than observations made of pictures or

videos.

As mentioned earlier, POE and NOE students developed slightly more rigorous

research questions than L/I (see Appendix D.2). Although the difference is small, I believe

the observed increase in rigor occurs from something that happens during demonstrations

that cannot happen in a lecture. That is, direct observation and discussion of observed

phenomenon by POE and NOE students allowed for more thorough discussion of potential

variables, leading to more rigorous research questions. Greater focus on equipment in

demonstrations led to more discussion and generation of ideas for their application as

variables. Additionally, a lecture always took longer than demonstration, giving POE and

NOE student’s more time at the end of each lesson on day one that could be devoted to

research question development individually and with their partner.

Differing student experiences preceding the research question discussion could have

also contributed to the observed difference in rigor between POE/NOE and L/I classes.

Whereas the L/I lecture discussion focused on clarification of the science concept,

demonstration discussions centered on observed phenomenon. Narrow focus of the physical

demonstration in POE and NOE classes led to intensive discussion of variables, in turn

leading to more rigorously developed research questions.

141

In summary, I believe that a contributing factor that led POE and NOE students to

develop a more rigorous set of investigable research questions was the direct observation of a

tangible demonstration involving the concept of the lesson, the structure of the discussion

prior to their development, and the amount of time spent individually and with a partner on

their development.

The role of “novelty”

As stated earlier, students reported that the most rewarding learning experiences were

gained from unfamiliar phenomenon, or phenomenon they had never observed. This leads

me to believe that the most rewarding experience then would be to see the full demonstration,

as a POE, if it had never been seen or experienced before. Supporting this argument was

Morgan who said that Unit 3 (NOE) was the best learning experience because she did not

know about it and Unit 1 (POE) was the least rewarding learning experience because she

already knew about it and so it wasn’t that interesting. Although it may be important to see

the demonstration performed, it may actually be equally important, or more important, that

the experience is new or novel to the observer.

As I observed the NOE situations, I saw some very striking parallels to the art of

magic, which is something that I’m very familiar with. Magic promotes deep, sustained

inquiry. People who watch a magic trick will invest much time and deep thought to resolve

what they have seen. They will beg the magician to reveal the secret, or some part of it.

Perhaps, this is the “hook”. It is in the curiosity that builds from the magician’s insistence to

withhold an explanation. It may be this “tease”, this inability to explain a discrepant event

that generates and maintains such a high level of curiosity and need to know. Students

expect the “secret” to be divulged and thoroughly explained when they observe a scientific

142

phenomenon in the classroom. Perhaps, an NOE without any encouragement to initialize

investigation or explanation would be similar and produce deeper inquiry, curiosity, or

interest to investigate.

143

CHAPTER 5

ACTIONS RESULTING FROM THIS RESEARCH STUDY

5.1 Introduction and Overview

In chapter four, I answered the three research questions that informed this study. In

this chapter I will discuss the implications, influence, and impact of this action research

project as it relates to the participants, my practice as a science teacher, the other roles that I

engage in as an educator, and my colleagues.

I begin this chapter by presenting a discussion of how this study impacted the student

participants, as suggested from their personal reports and from my observations. The chapter

continues with a discussion of how my experiences from this study will influence my

practices as a science teacher, which will include considerations of curriculum and

pedagogical choices. The next section will address the implications that each of these

influences will have as they merge and impact my future students. This will be followed by

an examination of the influence of this study on my roles as mentor and department chair,

including a brief review of its impact on my colleagues. The chapter will conclude with a

discussion of future research that this study positions me to engage in, as I move forward into

the next phase of action research.

5.2 Impact on Participants

While I did not collect systematic data to support this claim, as a teacher I observed

that my students gained a deeper understanding of appropriate variables and research

questions as a result of this intervention. I noticed less explanation and direct teaching of

these process skills, while also noticing more student-developed variables and research

questions of an appropriate nature, as I continued teaching the course. While it was evident

144

that much more work was necessary in the classroom to continue cultivation of student

ability to recognize and develop appropriate variables and research questions, it was clear

that exposure and practice had fostered an environment that led students to acquire an

appreciation for the significance of well-developed research questions in the field of science.

Because less work was demanded of me for the development of variable and research

questions, I believe that student’s self-confidence increased in their own abilities to develop

them.

I also sensed that students gained a deeper appreciation for class discussion as it

impacts the development of their own scientific investigations. Discussion has continued to

be a feature in these classrooms for the rest of the school year as a method of engaging

students to share findings, and to collaboratively develop meaning from those findings. In

particular, I saw great value for students in using discussion as a tool to enhance pre-

investigative work. I believe that students recognized the value in sharing their proposed

investigative ideas and in discussing qualities that made each of those proposals more or less

scientifically appropriate, or “productive”.

I also feel that because of their participation in this study, through the multiple

opportunities they were given to reflect and comment on their experiences, my students

potentially gained some metacognitive skills with respect to their learning. There were a

number of comments and suggestions made by students in which they described their most

rewarding learning experiences and what elements made those experiences individually

rewarding. Students also suggested how some of their experiences could be made to be more

rewarding. There were even some suggestions as to how entire lessons should be structured

in order to make them the most valuable learning experiences. Because of these

145

metacognitive statements, I believe that students benefitted from learning more about how

they learn.

5.3 Impact on My Teaching Practice

My experiences from this study have influenced my delivery of instruction,

perspective of student acquisition of concepts, the ways in which I will organize and make

that acquisition more accessible to students, the instructional tools that aid student learning of

the concepts embedded in the science curriculum I teach, and the ways in which students can

better be equipped with those valuable tools.

In my previous classroom experiences, demonstrations have typically been placed

mid-lesson. Following my experiences in this study, as mentioned in Chapter Four, I have

concluded that demonstrations placed mid-lesson communicate the impression of a

“commercial” or an “ice-breaker”, while a POE or NOE demonstration placed at the outset of

the lesson can become the central focus of the lesson. Consistent with this realization, I plan

to use more demonstrations as the beginning and focal point of a unit, and the stimulus of

student-generated investigations.

This study has found that students perceive prediction-making to enhance their

engagement, and that prediction-making provides opportunity for students to be active,

responsible participants in their own learning. Lab inquiry following prediction-making is a

more valuable student experience than inquiry without. As a result, lab inquiry conducted in

my classroom in the future will be prefaced by student-derived predictions often.

As discussed in Chapter Four, observation of phenomenon “in action” influences

student-developed variables, research questions, and investigations. As a result, I plan to

146

incorporate diverse visual aids such as demonstrations, physical models, video, lab

equipment and supplies into lessons involving investigation through inquiry.

This study suggested rewarding benefits to L/I lessons. One of those benefits lies in

class discussion, where personal past experiences (PPE) are elicited and capitalized upon.

L/I class discussions led to many more PPE’s elicited in class discussion, which students

reported helped them to construct meaning of the concept. I believe that PPE’s can be

valuable tools towards conceptual understanding and reinforcement. As a result, I would

want to lead class discussions toward student recall and discussion of PPE’s involving the

concept. I would specifically ask students for any recollections of PPE’s in an effort to

prompt further discussion, engagement, and conceptual understanding, both in the context of

lecture-based and demonstration-based lessons.

In this study, POE and NOE students developed a greater number of investigable

research questions with a higher level of rigor. These findings have motivated me to institute

a new approach to my typical classroom practices. In my personal experiences, labs have

always been centered on individual distinct science concepts. Student expectations for

variable identification and research question writing skills were embedded within these labs.

Conducting lessons in this format have not provided the most advantageous opportunity for

students to successfully learn the tools and techniques for variable identification and research

question development, which I consider to be critical aspects towards the objective of

learning science through inquiry. In the past I think that I have been asking my students to

tackle too much at once, without the benefit of being able to attend to a more focused

objective, allowing them to hone critical skills before moving on in the curriculum. I think a

valuable approach would be one of scaffolding, in which students are allowed to focus on

147

variables and research questions first, perhaps in individual lessons. Once they have

achieved a certain level of understanding and accomplishment with their abilities to identify

variables and develop research questions, it would be entirely appropriate to engage in

lessons that focus on concepts. Students would have the skills necessary to more

appropriately conduct investigations.

Essentially, I am proposing to use POE/NOE demonstrations in the beginning of the

school year to teach variable identification and research question development. Development

of these skills would be followed by lab experiences centrally focused on individual science

concepts. These initial POE/NOE lessons would not be disconnected from important science

content. The lesson would foreground the content, while maintaining the skills of variable

and research question development as primary objectives. These proposed lessons would

concentrate on skill-building in the context of valuable important content.

One way to accomplish this objective is through lessons intended to review sixth

grade concepts or curriculum with students. Specifically, I would use a concept that was

taught in sixth grade, but I would extend this concept into an area unexplored at that grade

level. I could also present a discrepant event that would challenge their understanding of the

concept that they had learned in sixth grade, generating cognitive disequilibrium. In this

situation, students would be surprised by the unexpected outcome of the demonstration, yet

have enough of a foundation from sixth grade that will allow them to explore the concept

deeper. This idea will be successful in my current curriculum, since the first few weeks of the

school year is more focused on classroom/laboratory practices and introductions to science.

Transforming my curriculum and my practice in this way has the potential to greatly increase

148

the value of my student’s lab experiences throughout the school year, presenting richer

learning experiences with more rewarding learning outcomes.

Additionally, the purpose of demonstrations in my classroom will no longer be to

simply generate enthusiasm or interest. Furthermore, I will no longer approach

demonstrations as autonomous entities. In my future teaching, demonstrations will play an

integral role in the lesson. Rather than a supplemental or ancillary role, they will serve as a

focal point. Thoughtful and methodical implementation of demonstrations can be utilized to

establish investigative inquiry as meaningful academic experiences.

The POE lessons in each unit on day one generally had twice the amount of time

remaining at the end of class than did the NOE lessons. This situation might afford the

opportunity for a traditional classroom “lecture” experience in the same lesson, an experience

that some participants of this study claimed would be valuable to their learning. The lecture

format does not necessarily have to precede the inquiry investigation. It would be

informative to investigate a format in which the lecture follows the investigation.

Participants in this study expressed particular value in the note-taking experiences during

lecture lessons, so I would not want to lose this component. The format could be either

POE/NOE, lecture, investigation and note-taking, or POE/NOE, investigation, lecture and

note-taking.

If note-taking followed investigation, it would be a summative experience involving

student generalizations and claims based on their investigative data and experiences. Note-

taking would serve as a verification check for both student and teacher, as well as a way to

generalize and extend learning beyond the specifics of a particular demonstration or

investigation. Perhaps the class would begin with a benchmark lesson, involving a

149

demonstration and referencing general concepts without providing specific details, such as

formal scientific language. This would be followed by investigation and lecture, which

would involve more details as discovered during the inquiry investigation and referencing the

lecture preceding the investigation. An alternative would be a benchmark lesson in between

the demonstration and the inquiry investigation that guides students as they begin to

understand the concept at hand without explicitly being given too much information prior to

the investigation.

Finally, from my experiences in this study, I would want to extend each unit to 3-

eighty minute blocks, instead of the two used in this intervention. There was not enough

time in the two-block format to fully address some features of investigation that I felt were

critical for students to engage in. For example, I felt more time was necessary to reflect on

protocol design, observation/ data collection, and have a class discussion following

presentation of conclusions. One limiting factor to consider is that my curriculum may not

allow me to engage in very deep instruction on these characteristics in each unit, due to time.

However, if I engaged in very thorough instruction of these traits in the first few units, that

might provide the foundation for students in the POE/NOE experiences that follow. This

might allow me to spend less time on their explicit instruction in those follow-up

investigative experiences, affording more opportunity for these experiences in the

curriculum.

5.4 Other Actions Resulting From This Study

In my current role as science department chair, one of my responsibilities is to ensure

the department continues to challenge itself collaboratively and individually. One of our

primary objectives is continued professional growth. This study offers an opportunity for my

150

team to do that by sharing what I learned from this study and drawing implications for

improving our teaching practices.

In March, 2010 I met with two colleagues teaching seventh grade science. The

experiences that I shared generated great interest, since demonstrations are strong

components to our curriculum. There was specific interest in how these findings might affect

my practice in the next school year. After sharing my thoughts, we decided to continue

discussions of my study’s findings during available collegial planning times through the

remainder of the current school year. There was collective agreement to collaboratively

explore the impact of these findings through action research cycle efforts in our classrooms.

There was a consensus that these findings could inform our practices and influence student

learning. Through summer collaborative days we plan to structure an initiative for future

research, including suggestions for the translation of these findings into application in our

classrooms.

5.5 Future Action Research Plans

As previously mentioned, this study has already influenced my practice and

broadened my awareness for the learning experiences of my students, especially as it relates

to science demonstrations. As articulated in Chapter Three, action research involves multiple

cycles of observing, reflecting, planning and acting with the objective of improving practice.

As I position myself for the next steps of the action research cycle, my objective will

be to acquire deeper insights to the findings already generated and to expand these findings

beyond that which was possible with the data collected for this dissertation study. Other

modifications will be intended to examine classroom features and student outcomes that were

151

not within the scope of this investigation. These include studying the impact of the

intervention on student learning, as well as on student success in the course.

Some features I would like to personally explore in the near future are extensions of

findings or observations made during this study. For example, I would like to offer pictorial

illustrations as prediction choices in the POE design. These models would be based on

predictions made in this study, possible demonstration outcomes as choices that students

would then be asked to justify in their journal entry. I would also like to ask students to

identify and list potential variables before developing research questions. I think that doing

this might help them develop more rigorous, better defined research questions.

Another addition to the journal entries would be a question following each

investigation, asking students how valuable they felt the experience was, and what made it

valuable. This would allow me to identify specific components or characteristics of each

investigation that students felt were most rewarding to their learning. Students did respond

to a similar question in this study, but it was in the final class reflection journal entry, where

the focus was more on comparing all three designs.

I would also like to more deeply explore the observed differences in student reactions

between this study and past classroom experiences. For example, I think student reaction to

the demonstration in NOE Unit 1 would have been more enthusiastic had I inadvertently

dropped the soda cans into the water and then pushed the cart aside as the students looked on.

I would like to do this and compare the results. With this same demonstration I would also

like to lower one pop can in the water after predictions are made and then follow that by

seemingly “finding” another can and asking what will happen as I’m dropping it in. I think

this may create potential for greater reaction as some students may not initially recognize the

152

difference in the two cans. I would not point this difference out, as I had done in this study.

I think that many students would think that all cans will do whatever the first one does. I also

think that if students have had past personal experience that differs from what happens in the

demo, it would create more interest and conversation. When one can floats and one sinks

simultaneously it offers an “out” for any personal experience that a student may have had.

The level of cognitive disequilibrium is greatly reduced because the student sees both

alternatives, and possible outcomes, at once. It may be that students are allowed to accept

the discrepant event by “discounting” one.

The discrepant event demonstrations used in this study were chosen with the intent to

display concepts taught in the curriculum at a specific time of the school year. They were

also chosen due to the availability of necessary equipment. But, are there any specific

characteristics of demonstrations, particularly discrepant events, which might position them

more or less suitably for NOE or POE situations? Are there any demonstrations that are

inappropriate candidates for NOE or POE situations? What qualifies them as less than ideal?

These are all considerations that I am very interested in pursuing.

With my personal experiences involving demonstrations as a background to this

study, I feel that a POE demonstration may be most effective and best influence student

engagement if its execution exhibits action, progression, or the development of a process. I

think a procedural demonstration that produces action, movement, or a progressive process

that results in a startling display most affects the observer emotionally, intensifying interest.

These types of presentations are best suited as POE demonstrations. I want to examine this

hunch through further studies.

153

Another possible future study regards student interest. In this study it was possible to

analyze student interest by class period, unit, or lesson model (POE/NOE/L/I). I want to

analyze interest by demonstration, but the current data does not allow me to do that, since

each demonstration was experienced through only one lesson model per class. In a future

study, I would like to present each demonstration in both POE and NOE models, allowing

me to study whether those types of demonstrations generated more interest in a particular

model.

154

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction and Overview

This study was developed using action research methodology to explore how science

demonstrations can be designed to most effectively promote student engagement in scientific

inquiry. The study focused on the impact of specific design elements of demonstrations, so

as to address a limitation of current research identified by Milne and Otieno (2007). A key

component to the design of this study was the use of discrepant events in each of the

demonstrations involved, intended to motivate students to question the observed anomaly and

promote further exploration through self-generated investigation. Along with this common

element, the following three design models were investigated: (1) the Predict, Observe and

Explain (POE) model, in which students predicted the outcome to an event prior to observing

it, (2) the Naturally Occurring Experience (NOE) model, in which students were exposed to a

seemingly impromptu and unscripted demonstration, and (3) an interactive lecture format

lesson not involving a demonstration, used as a comparison model. Following each of these

scenarios, students were asked to design and conduct an investigation to explain the

phenomenon observed in the demonstration and to deepen their understanding of the

embedded concept of the lesson. This involved identifying and selecting a potential variable,

forming a research question and designing and conducting an investigation to examine it.

Alternating each of these instructional models between the three sections of Physical Science

that I taught over three units of instruction allowed for each section to experience all models

and allowed for comparison.

155

More specifically, the research questions providing direction and focus to this study

were:

1. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (a) how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’

interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

2. How does an NOE discrepant event demonstration impact: (a) how students design,

conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’

interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

3. What are similarities and differences in (a) how students design, conduct and interpret

their own investigation around a scientific phenomenon and (b) students’ interest in

learning about that scientific phenomenon in the following three scenarios: (i) students

develop their own investigation without a prior demonstration following an interactive

lecture, (ii) students develop their own investigation after a discrepant event

demonstration using POE, and (iii) students develop their own investigation after an

NOE demonstration using a discrepant event.

A rich set of complementary data was collected from a variety of sources including class

audio-tapes, participant journal entries, independent observer field notes, participant

interviews and a teacher’s log. Analysis of this data disclosed emerging themes and findings

that helped answer each of the research questions, as summarized in the next section.

6.2 Summary of the Findings

Findings from this study revealed that each instructional model investigated influenced

student engagement and learning outcomes in valuable yet distinct ways. First of all, the

manner in which demonstrations are presented seemed to show evidence of student

156

engagement in different ways. POE experiences showed considerable cognitive engagement,

indicated through thoughtful, on-task questions and responses. As the POE format focuses

and directs student attention, it provides more significance and structure to the

demonstration. The NOE format, seemingly because it involves an informal, unintentional,

and inadvertent presentation, resulted in more observable student engagement. Students may

have been observed as less overtly excited and engaged in POE as compared to NOE lessons,

however, they were very cognitively engaged in POE lessons as well.

This engagement can be connected with prediction-making, one of the most notable

characteristics of the POE format and a distinct difference between POE and NOE

demonstrations. Findings from this study confirm claims in the literature that prediction-

making strengthens student focus and attention to details, establishing a rigorous academic

classroom atmosphere and student-minded direction to the class, as determined through

observation and student reporting. This study has shown that students’ prediction-making

also positively influences the quality of student-led scientific investigations, especially with

regard to the development of worthwhile research questions. Prediction-making also

enhances student interest and curiosity in the lesson and the concept, subsequently cultivating

their motivation to understand more, thereby enriching their learning experience.

At the same time, students participating in an NOE demonstration benefited from the

spontaneity and novelty offered by this situation. In addition, POE and NOE students

reported that the most rewarding learning experiences were gained when the phenomenon

demonstrated was unfamiliar, and the least rewarding experiences resulted when the

demonstration featured familiar concepts or phenomena. This finding suggests the value of

choosing “novel” events for events as demonstrations.

157

The use of discrepant events as the content of a demonstration was a critical aspect of the

intervention at the core of this study. Consistent with the literature on conceptual change, the

anomaly embedded in each discrepant event indeed appears to have been an instrumental

feature in motivating student interest and engagement. Discrepant events not only motivated

students to pursue a deeper understanding of the phenomenon but also affected their choice

of variables and research questions for their investigations. As mentioned earlier, pictures

and images in video, which may have also represented a discrepant event, as observed by L/I

students also affected their choice of variables and research questions. Student interest

generated by discrepant event demonstrations, whether using a POE or NOE model, also led

to continued interest and self-directed engagement with the demonstration or the concept,

such as replicating the demonstration at home, or even talking about the phenomenon at

home or with the teacher after class.

Students who observed a demonstrated phenomenon in the classroom (POE and NOE)

were able to develop a greater number of appropriate, investigable research questions than

those who did not have that benefit. These research questions also exhibited a slightly higher

degree of rigor. Observation of a phenomenon also led to a more in-depth discussion of

variables during the research question discussion for POE and NOE. These observations led

to a greater discussion of variables, which in turn generated more rigorous research questions

to be examined in a student-led investigation. In all models investigated, class discussion

emerged as a valuable classroom resource, a significant asset to the development of

variables, research questions, and investigations. One particular feature of class discussion

involved past personal experiences shared by students, and contributing to their development

of variables and research questions.

158

As L/I students benefited from a lecture centrally focused on the concept, not

surprisingly L/I research questions were found to be more central to the concept of the

lesson. When predicting the outcome to their proposed investigations, L/I classes also rated

higher in their ability to apply sound, logical, scientific reasoning that was properly aligned

with the research question. Following their investigations, L/I students’ exhibited a

somewhat deeper level of conceptual understanding in their conclusions. As more of these

students appropriately drew from the concept of the lesson to explain their observations,

more of their conclusions were appropriately founded on the concept, articulating the highest

degree of coherence. This, in turn, suggests the value of enhancing POE or NOE lessons by

including at appropriate points the consideration of key scientific concepts through mini-

lectures and/or readings.

In addition, note-taking was reported by L/I students as offering benefits. Students

claimed that the attention necessary for note-taking was valuable to their conceptual

understanding and that notes also served as an educational tool, as a reference providing

detailed information that could be reviewed out of class. Once again, this suggests another

possible way to enhance POE or NOE lessons, by incorporating note-taking at appropriate

points.

To sum, if rigorous student-led inquiry investigation is the objective, as is recommended

by the National Research Council, POE or NOE lessons can help teachers achieve this goal.

Contributing factors leading POE/NOE students to develop a more rigorous set of

investigable research questions were the direct observation of a tangible demonstration

involving the concept of the lesson, and the structure of the discussion prior to their

development. At the same time, the effectiveness of demonstration-based lessons could be

159

enhanced by including some elements that were present only in my “lecture/inquiry” design,

that is making more explicit connections with the concept and note-taking as appropriate.

6.3 Limitations of the Study

There are some limitations inherent with the design of this study that need to be taken

into consideration before discussing the study’s contributions to the field and implications for

other science teachers. First, the order of the presented demonstrations or concepts may have

affected some of the findings, or influenced data and outcomes. Although the structure of the

study allowed for each class to receive all three instructional models (POE, NOE, L/I) it did

not allow for successive variation in how these experiences were sequenced.

Another limitation involved student ratings of value and interest for each unit.

Because only three demonstrations were investigated, more would have to be studied in order

to validate and more clearly understand the data collected in this study. For example,

without further research, it is unclear whether students rated the instructional model (POE,

NOE, L/I) or the content of the lesson, thus conclusions cannot be made from the existing

data whether it was the content or the format of the lesson that was found more valuable or

interesting.

Another limitation was observed in student journal entries, where it appeared that

some of the conclusions may have been shared and written identically between partners.

This occurred even though it was clearly stated that conclusions were to be individually

written.

Just as in other teaching strategies, the results and findings from this study will not

necessarily generalize to all students. Any of the reported benefits do not impact all students

equally. The learning experiences of each student are unique to each individual. Findings,

160

results and conclusions generated from this study might also, to some extent, be specific to

the school in which it was conducted, the particular participants, or to the grade level in

which they occurred.

Additionally, the scope of this study did not include measurements of student learning

of the concepts. Nor did this study measure conceptual change that may have occurred for

students through their experiences in this study. Both of these outcomes are significant and

deem further exploration in future studies.

Finally, these findings should not be interpreted as best practices in all classroom

situations, nor are they generalizable to best practices for all teachers, as they depended in

part on my own classroom approach and teaching style. From my experiences in this study, I

feel the models investigated in this study might work best for those teachers who are

comfortable with taking risks and are willing to relinquish some control to students-

something that not every teacher may be comfortable with. Unique classroom and

curriculum constraints also may exist. For example, one may not always be able to find a

demonstration that appropriately displays the concept intended to be studied, or have the

necessary time to devote to either the demonstration or the following investigation.

6.4 Contributions to the Field

With the caveats articulated in the previous section, this study supports the value of

using demonstrations to promote fruitful engagement in student-directed scientific

investigations. Through findings from this study, there are a number of claims in the

literature, as discussed in my literature review, which I can now confirm, add to, and

elaborate on.

161

I will begin with research that has shown demonstrations to increase student interest

and engagement. It is significant to point out that prior studies measured interest and

engagement only as the demonstration was actively presented. Results from this study add to

these findings in a number of ways. First, findings from this study have confirmed that

demonstrations produced interest and engagement in the topic of the lesson. In addition, this

interest was carried into the investigation and learning about that topic that followed the

demonstration per-se. Additionally, novelty and spontaneity in the NOE situation was shown

to heighten student engagement, and shown to do so in such a way that was unique and

different from the interest and engagement generated by the prediction-making characteristic

of POE, as found in previous literature and confirmed in this study.

Another point made in the previous literature was that demonstrations can promote

active learning environments, especially if students are not passive observers. Prior research

has positioned prediction-making in POE situations as a strategy to promote active learning,

since students are not passively observing, but rather actively predicting. This study has

confirmed these findings. When students made predictions, they became invested in the

outcome, and engagement was enhanced. However, findings from this study also add to the

existing research in a number of ways.

In much of the literature, demonstrations were used to “confirm”, or show, a

previously taught concept. In these cases, the intent was for predictions and observations to

be aligned with what had been learned. In contrast, demonstrations in this study were used to

introduce a concept. In that sense, since predictions were made prior to the introduction of

the concept, prediction-making was based on the past personal experiences of the observer.

In the context of a discrepant event demonstration with a counterintuitive outcome, the

162

objective of the demonstration is not to align previously learned concepts with the

demonstration, but rather to misalign student’s expectations with the demonstration so as to

extend what they know. Through the cognitive dissonance thus experienced, students

became interested and motivated to investigate a concept in order to learn more about it,

suggesting the importance of discrepant event demonstrations as a way to engage students.

It is significant to point out that this study has shown student engagement in NOE

situations was high, even in the absence of prediction-making. Although the initial

prediction-making has been shown to strengthen engagement, findings from this study have

shown that a high level of student engagement can be achieved even without prediction-

making. It is possible that, in the context of this study, the discrepant event has caused this

engagement without the need for predictions. The literature says that active learners, as in

either “hands-on” or in prediction-making, are more engaged. Yet, in NOE situations

students were not involved in “hands-on” experiences, nor were they actively making

predictions, yet they were still highly engaged.

Some critics in the literature argued that demonstrations could make students less

motivated to solve problems independently and explore “what if” questions. Findings from

this study challenge this claim. As previously mentioned, at the foundation of discrepant

events is the intent to cause discomfort through cognitive dissonance. It is this inherent

quality of discrepant events which positions them as powerful motivators for students, as

shown in this study, to independently investigate “problems” discovered in the observed

phenomenon. Additionally, the ability to identify potential variables that might exist in the

demonstration apparatus was a key feature of these demonstrations that allowed students

already engaged by cognitive dissonance to pursue “what if” questions.

163

Another contribution involves the use of demonstrations for multiple instructional

purposes. Different types of learning outcomes are derived when demonstrations are used for

different purposes. Specifically, this study has shown that demonstrations can be effectively

used to support worthwhile student-led inquiry investigations. Prior research has not

investigated the use of demonstrations in this way. In this regard, this study offers a unique

perspective, and a valuable strategy, for implementing demonstrations within an inquiry-

based lesson. Additionally, this study has shown that rewarding student-led investigations

can follow demonstrations without disrupting the curriculum. The interventions in this study

were achieved without significant constraints put on the curriculum with regard to time and

without modifying the existing curriculum.

As discussed in Chapter Four, my expectation was that prediction-making in POE

would make the most significant influence in student engagement and learning. However,

this study has shown that what actually made the most significant impact on students

investigations were observations of the phenomenon “in action” as experienced through

demonstration. With regards to the presentation of demonstrations in science classrooms,

this finding suggests that student engagement improves if the teacher explicitly directs

students’ attention to the apparatus, its use, and the steps involved in the demonstration.

Designed to study the effects of specific design elements within science

demonstrations on students’ engagement in scientific investigations, this study found that the

“design elements within” the demonstration were not the only critical feature of the lesson

that influenced student engagement. Of great significance is also the structure of the lesson

surrounding the demonstration. Indeed, the design elements around the demonstration, and

their impact on the demonstration, played a very meaningful role in student engagement and

164

potential learning outcomes in the intervention studied. At its outset, the perceived

significance of the demonstration, including its impact on the upcoming lesson, can influence

engagement and learning in meaningful ways. Similarly, an understanding of the

connections between observed phenomenon in the demonstrations and the subsequent

investigation, as well as to the scientific concept in the lesson, is influential. Demonstrations

that have purposeful connections to the preceding and subsequent elements of the lesson are

especially meaningful.

As a result, this study supports the argument that science demonstrations should not

be approached as isolated entities in a lesson. Rather, this study suggests the potential of

using demonstrations as key features of lessons, especially as a means of launching into

student-led inquiry investigations. Numerous learning opportunities and advantages result

when the demonstration is interconnected and embodied to the lesson. Demonstrations

should not be simply presented, but rather thoughtfully coordinated and interwoven into the

lesson, cultivating a synergistic relationship. The demonstration is not mutually exclusive to

the lesson.

Demonstrations should also be viewed as instructional strategies, or tools, influencing

many different facets of a students learning experience. For example, this study has shown

that the POE model generated greater numbers of appropriate student-developed variables.

As a result, when including a POE demonstration into a lesson, the demonstration should

have the potential for investigation of a number of diverse variables. In a POE situation, a

demonstration whose apparatus is limited in variable choice will limit student potential and

expression. On the other hand, a POE demonstration involving a number of components that

can be manipulated during the presentation will be resourceful to students, providing

165

significant opportunity for them to generate an extensive record of variables. This, in turn,

will lead to richer student-led investigations. The more restrictive the demonstration is in

this regard, the more restrictive the experience for the students.

Presenting demonstrations as a way to convey a concept and to generate interest and

enthusiasm for science are commendable objectives in the classroom, but do not allow

demonstrations to be optimally implemented to promote student scientific inquiry and the

benefits that can be gained from it. Rather than serving a supplemental or ancillary role in

the curriculum, demonstrations delivered in a thoughtful and methodical manner, connecting

the demonstration experience to student-led investigations, can become much more than an

enhancement to a lesson. Demonstrations can be the impetus to the lesson, directing the

lesson. Fundamental to this study, and paramount to a science curriculum, demonstrations

can enhance a student’s investigative experience through inquiry. The demonstration can be

an inextricable, driving force of the lesson. Instead of being the thing that is inserted into the

planned lesson, the demonstration can be expanded as the catalyst of the lesson, it can be the

focal point.

Through this study it became evident to me that in each of the units students were

learning more than science content. They were learning about the process and the nature of

science. Essentially, they were learning about how to learn science. Fundamental to this

outcome was the use of discrepant events as demonstrations, due to their inherent nature to

establish cognitive disequilibrium, introducing curiosity. Once established, curiosity and

inquisitiveness fittingly progressed into authentic inquiry investigation. This study

positioned discrepant events as significant tools in the classroom by causing students to

question the demonstration, a critical feature that motivated students to pursue investigations.

166

Each of the discrepant events implemented in this study had the capacity to cultivate

curiosity and wonder without an understanding for the embedded concept. This was critical

to their ability to successfully instill an inquisitive disposition in students. For this reason,

discrepant events are significant demonstration tools. There are a number of chemistry

demonstrations that require at least a basic understanding for a particular science concept in

order to appreciate their results. For example, one demonstration involves using pH paper to

show the changing acidity of a particular liquid through titration. However, the results can

only be appreciated through an understanding of titration, acidity, and the concept of pH. In

contrast, due to the nature of the demonstrations implemented in this study, many students

could relate the observed phenomenon to personal experiences. When students predict in a

POE they are essentially basing their prediction on personal experience, not on a scientific

concept that it is necessary to understand in order to suitably predict.

Research supports inquiry-based scientific investigation. The NRC supports strongly

endorses this classroom approach. This study has shown that scientific inquiry can be

successfully accomplished in a reasonable amount of time, without disruption to established

curriculum. Each of the inquiry experiences involved in this study was successful, in

different ways. Students were shown to successfully develop and engage in all components

of inquiry-based investigations. In each of the lesson designs employed in this study,

students generated their own research questions using appropriate variables, designed their

own experiment to investigate their questions, conducted the investigation, and drew

conclusions based on their observations- all within two 80-minute blocks. The curriculum

covered was based on the required content, as well. One additional student benefit included

167

experiencing the process of “authentic” science. This study has shown tremendous benefits

to student-led inquiry investigations.

6.5 Recommendations for Science Teachers

Findings from the study could help science teachers make more well-informed

pedagogical decisions concerning the design of specific demonstrations, consistent with their

instructional goals. Findings and experiences from this study provide recommendations that

I have identified specific to first year science teachers who are interested in using

demonstrations in their classroom, as well as for established science teachers who do not

have a background in magic. My first suggestion would be to initially use demonstrations in

a limited way, presenting demonstrations that minimize the complexity of the equipment and

the procedure. I would also recommend practicing the demonstration before presenting it to

the students, in order to feel “comfortable” with it. It is important to find demonstrations that

meet the curriculum objectives and targeted concepts, as well. Demonstrations should not be

used to introduce a topic or concept, abandoning the demonstration as the concept is pursued.

Finally, it should be noted that NOE experiences may require a certain “presence” on the part

of the teacher, who must be able to “present” the observed phenomenon in such a way that it

appears as though it was not intended to be presented.

6.6 Further Research

In Chapter Five, I already articulated a few directions I am interested in personally

pursuing as my next cycle of action research on this topic, which include studying the impact

of the intervention on student learning and on student success in the course, incorporating

pictorial illustrations as prediction choices in the POE design, examining different types of

discrepant event demonstrations, and altering the succession of the various designs

168

throughout the study. In what follows, I will identify some additional ideas for future

research motivated by this study.

First of all, more research is necessary to determine whether this study’s findings are

generalizable to other age groups. My impression, based on my experiences with this study,

is that lessons focused on POE and NOE demonstrations could be valuable for other age

groups and science courses, as long as certain criteria are met. The first necessary element

would be that the discrepant event demonstrated be age appropriate, allowing the observer

the opportunity to either relate to the phenomenon from personal experience, or that the

observer has achieved a developmental level to grasp the discrepancy in the demonstration.

The second condition is that the investigation be procedurally age appropriate, and that the

content of the demonstration is accessible, affording the opportunity for deeper

understanding of the concept at an appropriate cognitive level. Unless the demonstration and

subsequent investigation can connect the student’s cognitive developmental stage and the

science content, it remains simply a spectacle to attract attention, rather than the stimulus for

authentic student-driven inquiry.

Participants of this study suggested that the most valuable structure for a unit would

be a demonstration, followed by a lecture, then by an inquiry experience. This study did not

include a scenario in which an inquiry experience preceded a lecture. It would be valuable to

examine the outcomes of a lesson structured with POE/NOE, lecture, investigation and note-

taking, or POE/NOE, investigation, lecture and note-taking. It would also be informative to

study the effects of having the lecture at the beginning or the end of this type of lesson.

Would students benefit from a lesson format consisting of demonstration, investigation, and

lecture with notes? Would this format be strengthened by structuring lecture before

169

investigation, but adding a synthesis of the entire class experience in the form of notes at the

end of the lesson? These are questions that could be addressed in future studies.

One intriguing approach to a POE demonstration would involve students individually

conducting the action leading to the observe phase. In each of the POEs conducted in this

study I activated the observed phenomenon. It would be worthwhile to study and compare

student engagement in experiences involving the same demonstrations used in this study, but

which are executed by a student. For example, in Unit 1 (involving the floating/sinking pop

can demonstration), rather than the teacher dropping the pop cans in water, the students

would have their own equipment and drop the cans into the water themselves. Student

engagement in this situation could be compared to the findings of this study.

As mentioned in Chapter Four, the inclusion of still images and video in L/I lessons

might be interpreted by students as experiences similar to those in NOE lessons. This is an

area that could be addressed in future studies. Investigations should examine whether still

images or video produce results similar to NOE. If this does occur, further investigation

should try to answer how and why this occurs.

Finally, while this was not part of this study, it would be helpful to know the level of

understanding that students had for the core science concepts that were addressed in each

unit. Did all students understand the concepts in the same ways, or were there differences

based on the type of lesson design? While it is significant that students were engaged in

scientific inquiry, what was their “take-away” understanding, and were there differences?

These seem to be valuable pieces of information that might be better understood through

future studies.

6.7 Concluding Thoughts

170

This study investigated how discrepant event demonstrations could be designed so as

to most effectively promote students’ engagement in scientific inquiry. Using an action

research methodology, I explored how demonstrations using discrepant events might be best

designed to facilitate student-developed investigations of inquiry, studying the impact of

different designs. In the process, I discovered many more ways than I had anticipated in

which student engagement and investigations can be influenced by including a demonstration

into a lesson.

This study’s most significant discovery that will affect my practice was the awareness

that in addition to influencing engagement, demonstrations acting as the catalyst, or focal

point of the lesson, can strongly influence student’s development of their investigations and

subsequent investigative experiences. It is through a deeper understanding of the many

facets of the demonstration, the potential ways in which it can be anchored to the lesson, and

the interactions that occur between each facet and the student, that educators can best be

prepared to influence student engagement through the implementation of demonstrations.

The most significant overarching finding from this study is that demonstrations can indeed be

used to enhance a student’s inquiry-based investigative experience.

Scientific inquiry-based investigations offer classroom experiences that are deemed

significant and valuable components to science curriculum and to student’s science education

by the National Research Council, me, my colleagues, and many more science teachers.

Findings from this study have strengthened my belief in the value of demonstrations in a

science curriculum. The study suggests the importance of how a demonstration is “framed”

and carried out. This study has supported, strengthened and reinforced the value of inquiry-

based investigations in science classrooms, positioning them as powerful, meaningful tools to

171

student learning, and valuable, worthwhile components to classrooms of all science

educators.

172

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1991). Science for all Americans:

Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school (2nd Ed.).

California: Corwin Press.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education.

Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.

Baddock, M. & Bucat, R. (2008). Effectiveness of a classroom chemistry demonstration

using the cognitive conflict strategy. International Journal of Science Education,

30(8), 1115- 1128.

Beall, H. (1996). Report on the WPI Conference “Demonstrations as a Teaching Tool in

Chemistry: Pro and Con”. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(7), 641.

Beasley, W. (1982). Teacher demonstrations: The effect on student task involvement.

Journal of Chemical Education, 59,(9), 789-790.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Buncick, M. C., Betts, P. G., & Horgan, D. D. (2001). Using demonstrations as a contextual

road map: enhancing course continuity and promoting active engagement in

introductory college physics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12),

1237-1255.

Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.),

Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-42). Washington, DC:

American Association for the Advancement of Science.

173

Callan, J.P., Crouch, C.H., Fagen, A.P., & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom demonstrations:

Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835-838.

Candela, A. (1998). Demonstrations and problem-solving exercises in school science: Their

transformation within the Mexican elementary school classroom. Science Education,

81, 497-513.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A

theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-

218.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific

knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in

learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615-652.

Fagen, A. P. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science course in physics and

biology; peer instruction, classroom demonstration and genetics vocabulary (Doctoral

dissertation, Harvard University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64,

1586.

Freier, G. (1981). The use of demonstrations in physics teaching. The Physics Teacher,

19(6), 384-386.

Furtak, E. M. (2009). Formative assessment for secondary science teachers. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods

on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2), 121-131.

174

Hilton, W. (1981). Demonstrations as an aid in the teaching of physics. The Physics

Teacher, 19(6), 389-390.

Lawson, A. E. (2000). Managing the inquiry classroom: Problems & Solutions. The

American Biology Teacher, 62(9), 641-648.

Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual

change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.

Limon, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data; A case study in

the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2),

213- 230.

Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation.

Science Education, 91(5), 822-839.

Lynch, M. J., and Zenchak, J. J., (2002, January). Use of scientific inquiry to explain

counterintuitive observations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual

International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science,

Charlotte, NC.

Manaf, E. B. A., & Subramaniam, R. (2004, June). Use of chemistry demonstrations to foster

conceptual understanding and cooperative learning among students. Paper presented

at the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education, Singapore.

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Into

Practice, 29(3), 144-151.

McDermott, L. C. (2001). Physics education research- the key to student learning. American

Journal of Physics, 69(11), 1127-1137.

175

Meyer, L. S., Schmidt, S., Nozawa, F., & Paneee, D. (2003). Using demonstrations to

promote student comprehension in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(4),

431-435.

Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd Ed.). Columbus,

OH: Pearson.

Milne, C., and Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and

emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523- 53.

Morgan, J., Barroso, L.R., & Simpson, N. (2007, October). Active demonstrations for

enhancing learning. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Milwaukee,

WI.

National Research Council, 1996. National science education standards. Washington

National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2001. Inquiry and the national science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

O’Brien, T. (1991). The science and art of science demonstrations. Journal of Chemical

Education, 68(11), 933-936.

Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Less charted waters. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 5-7.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2,

176- 186.

Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1994). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role

of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual

change. Review of Educational Research, 63 (2), 167-199.

176

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a

scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,

211-227.

Roth, W-M., and Lucas, K. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis

of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 34, 145-179.

Roth, W-M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonne, S. (1997). Why may students fail

to learn from demonstrations? A social perspective on learning in physics. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 34, 509-533.

Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: ‘Like a bridge over

troubled water’. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427.

Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., and Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a

science demonstration on children’s understanding of air pressure. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243-258.

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing

learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and

Instruction, 11, 381-419.

Windschitl, M. (2008). What is inquiry? A framework for thinking about authentic scientific

practice in the classroom. In A. Cocke, J. Cusick, & B. Smith (Eds.), Science as

inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 1-20). NSTA Press.

Wright, E.L. and Govindarajan, G. (1995). Discrepant event demonstrations: Motivating

students to learn science concepts. The Science Teacher, 62(1), 25- 28.

177

Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.

178

Appendices

Appendix A A.1: Curriculum Map (1 of 3)

179

A.1: Curriculum Map (2 of 3)

180

A.1: Curriculum Map (3 of 3)

181

A.2: Detailed Unit 2 Lesson Plan

Detailed Plan for Unit 2

Unit 2 POE Demonstration Lesson:

Day One: Period One Students each have a laptop on their desks. Students are shown a beaker and a paper

towel, which is placed into the beaker. Their attention is then directed towards a larger beaker filled with water. Students are asked to predict what would happen if the cup were turned upside-down and pushed down into the water. They individually make their predictions by typing it into their reflective journals, and are also asked to type an explanation, or justification, for their prediction (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). Students are asked to verbally share their predictions with the class. I list students’ predictions on easel paper in front of the class. Students are then directed to observe the demonstration. The inverted beaker is pushed into the larger beaker of water. Students are asked to list observations in their reflective journals (again, in response to specific prompts- see Appendix B.1). The inverted beaker is removed and the paper towel is pulled out of the smaller beaker to show that it is dry. Students are then asked the following questions:

How do you think it is possible that the paper towel remained dry even though it was submerged under water? How might you test your explanation?

Day One: Period Two Students type their answers to these questions into their laptops. Students are

randomly paired up with a classmate by freely selecting a playing card from a deck of cards, each with a students name from the class written on it. The students name written on their randomly chosen card is their assigned partner. They are asked to share and discuss their explanations of the demonstration with their partner. They are given the opportunity to modify their answers and explanations and to enter their new ideas into their journals. If students do not want to change their initial explanation, they are instructed to type that response. Now groups are asked to share their explanations with the class. If the group’s explanation is the same for both partners, then one student presents the explanation. If their explanations differ, they are each asked to present their individual explanations. I record key words or phrases used in these explanations on easel paper. Students are once again given the opportunity to modify their answers and explanations and to type them. If students do not want to change their initial explanation, they are instructed to type that response. Students are now asked to individually type as many research questions as they can think of to investigate the observed phenomenon. Students are now asked to identify any variables that they believe might affect the outcome of the demonstration. Class discussion includes “what if…” and “I wonder…” questions. The entire class is given the opportunity to engage in a discussion of these questions. I ask for student answers and from these responses a list of relevant variables is generated and recorded on easel paper. Partners now discuss the list of variables, collaboratively choose one that they would like to investigate, and type a research question that their investigation is attempting to answer. Partners then list the materials they will need, and determine what information and data they need to collect in order to conduct their investigation. Each group is asked to share with the large group the variable they are investigating, a list of necessary materials and the question they are trying

182

to answer. Groups are asked to type a procedure, or protocol, for their investigation. Each student individually types their predictions to the results of their designed investigations. My role is to facilitate students in the planning and strategies necessary to conduct their inquiry, and to help identify potentially impractical or problematic issues. Possible prompts include whether different outcomes would result from using different liquids, different sized beakers, paper cups instead of beakers, a hole in the cup, or whether the placement or size of the hole would matter to the outcome. Students complete a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). I gather any additional materials needed, based on students questions, before class on Day Two. Day Two: Period One

Students conduct the investigation that they designed on day one. Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the class. Students are asked to complete and submit a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts).

Unit 2 NOE Demonstration Lesson Day One: Period One

When students enter the classroom and take their seats there is a large beaker on the teacher’s desk at the front of the classroom with paper towel inside. This beaker is inverted and sitting inside a larger beaker filled with water. A data projection device is aimed at the setup, but is not projecting an image. If attention is not drawn to the setup by the students, the Elmo is turned on as I clean up the area so that the setup is projected. This is done with the intent to draw attention. When attention is drawn to it, the students are told that it is from a lesson in the previous class. If the students show interest in experiencing this lesson, I agree to it. If the students do not ask to pursue this lesson, I ask them if they are interested in doing it, since “we have time”. The goal is to ask students the following question regarding the observed phenomenon:

How is it possible for the smaller beaker to be underwater, but the paper towel inside it to remain dry? Students are asked to complete a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). Day One: Period Two

Students design an investigation, similar to what was done in the POE unit. Day Two: Period One This is the same as POE. Day Two: Period Two

This is the same as POE.

Unit 2 Lecture/Inquiry Day One: Period One

When students enter the classroom, they each have a laptop at their desks. The lesson follows my typical lecture format. I begin by informing students that the concept under investigation is the molecular arrangement of a gas, which is introduced with a definition of the concept, followed by video and brief notes. The six minute video depicts properties of gases and illustrations of these properties. It includes an image of a boy blowing up a

183

balloon. The notes describe properties of gases. Students are asked to describe, through class discussion, any real-world examples or personals experiences involving whether gas particles have any particular pattern or whether gas has volume, or takes up space. Students would have previously encountered a lesson on volume. Students are told that they will be designing an experiment to help explain the arrangement and properties of gases. In particular, they are told that the class objective is to develop their own investigation in order to deepen their understanding of how gas particles are arranged or organized, or to investigate and show whether gas has volume. They are shown some available materials from which they can construct their investigation, such as beakers and cups of various sizes, balloons, and food coloring. They are told they are free to use other materials, and are not limited to these alone. Students are randomly paired up with a classmate by freely selecting a playing card from a deck of cards, each with a students name from the class written on it. The students name written on their randomly chosen card is their assigned partner. Together with their partner, students develop a question to investigate, relevant to the molecular arrangement of a gas. They are asked to share their ideas with the class, and I record these ideas on easel paper. Day One: Period Two

Responding to Journal Entry prompts (see Appendix B.1) each pair of students selects one question they would like to investigate and designs a protocol for their investigation. My role is to facilitate students in the planning and strategies necessary to conduct their inquiry, and to help identify potentially impractical or problematic issues. Day Two: Period One

Students conduct the investigation that they developed on day one. Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the class. Students are then asked to complete and submit a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts).

184

A.3: Detailed Unit 3 Lesson Plan

Detailed Plan for Unit 3

Unit 3 POE Demonstration Lesson

Day One: Period One Students each have a laptop at their desks. The lesson begins by showing a penny, a

beaker of water, and an eyedropper. The eyedropper is demonstrated first, so that all students understand how it works. It is explained that I will fill the eyedropper and drop single drops of water onto the penny, until the water falls off the edge of the penny. I ask students to predict how many drops of water they believe I will be able to place onto the penny before any water falls off the edge. They individually make their predictions by typing it into their reflective journals. They are also asked to type an explanation, or justification for their prediction (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). Students are asked to verbally share their predictions with the class. I list students’ predictions on easel paper in front of the class. The Elmo, a projection device, is used to show a close-up image of the penny lying on the table. Students are directed to observe the demonstration. Drops are placed onto the penny until the water spills off the edge of it. Students are then asked the following question:

How do you think so many drops were able to be put on the penny before falling off the

edge? How might you be able to test this? Day One: Period Two

Students type their answers to these questions into their laptops. Students randomly pair up with a classmate by freely selecting a playing card from a deck of cards, each with a students name from the class written on it. The students name written on their randomly chosen card is their assigned partner. They are asked to share and discuss their explanations of the demonstration with their partner. They are given the opportunity to modify their answers and explanations and to enter their new ideas into their journals. If students do not want to change their initial explanation, they are instructed to type that response. Now, groups are asked to share their explanations with the class. If the group’s explanation is the same for both partners, then one student presents the explanation. If their explanations differ, they are each asked to present their individual explanations. I record key words or phrases used in these explanations on easel paper. Students are once again given the opportunity to modify their answers and explanations and to type them. If students do not want to change their initial explanation, they will be instructed to type that response. Students are now asked to individually type as many research questions as they can think of to investigate the observed phenomenon. Students are now asked to identify any variables that they believe might affect the number of drops able to be placed on the penny. Class discussion includes “what if…” and “I wonder…” questions. The entire class is given the opportunity to engage in discussion of these questions. I ask for student answers and from these responses a list of relevant variables is generated and recorded on easel paper. Partners now discuss the list of variables, collaboratively choose one that they would like to investigate, and type a research question that their investigation is attempting to answer. Partners then list the materials they will need, and determine what information and data they need to collect in order to conduct their investigation. Each group is asked to share with the large group the variable they are

185

investigating, a list of necessary materials and the question they are trying to answer. Groups are asked to type a procedure, or protocol, for their investigation. Each student individually types their predictions to the results of their designed investigations. My role is to facilitate students in the planning and strategies necessary to conduct their inquiry, and to help identify potentially impractical or problematic issues. Guided investigations include whether different liquids will make different shapes, whether different liquids will hold different numbers of drops, whether different size coins hold different numbers of drops, whether different metals affect the number of drops held, and whether size of dropper, the use of heads or tails, the age of the penny, angle that the dropper is held, temperature of the liquid, and whether holding the dropper from different distances will make a difference to the outcome. Students complete a journal entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). I gather any additional materials needed, based on students questions, before class on Day Two. Day Two: Period One

Students conduct the investigation that they designed on day one. Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the class. Students are then asked to complete and submit a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts).

Unit 3 NOE Demonstration Lesson Day One: Period One

When students enter the classroom and take their seats, there is a penny filled to capacity with drops of water being projected on the Elmo. When attention is drawn to it, the students are told that it is from a lesson in the previous class. If the students show interest in experiencing this lesson, I agree to it. If the students do not ask to pursue this lesson, I ask them if they are interested in doing it, since “we have time”. I explain the use of the eyedropper and how the drops of water were put onto the penny. The goal is to ask students the following question regarding the observed phenomenon:

How do you think so many drops were able to be put on the penny without falling off the

edge? Students are asked to complete a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts). Day One: Period Two

Is the same as POE, except that guided questions include whether different liquids will make different shapes, whether different liquids will hold different numbers of drops, whether different size coins hold different numbers of drops, whether different metals affect the number of drops held, and whether size of dropper, the use of heads or tails, the age of the penny, angle that the dropper is held, and how far away the dropper is held will make a difference to the outcome. Day Two: Period One

This is the same as POE. Day Two: Period Two

This is the same as POE.

Unit 3 Lecture/Inquiry

186

Day One: Period One When students enter the classroom they each have a laptop at their desks. The lesson

follows my typical lecture format. I begin by informing students that the concept under investigation is cohesion, which is introduced with a definition of the concept, followed by video and brief notes. The four minute video illustrates the property of cohesion in liquids through images including beads of water formed on wax paper. Students are asked to describe, through class discussion, any real-world examples or personals experiences involving the concept of cohesion. If students do not come up with examples, I offer examples such as water droplets on the side of a drinking glass. Students are told that they will be designing an experiment to investigate this property. They are shown some available materials from which they can construct their investigation, including a collection of pennies, various beakers, liquids, and eyedroppers. They are told they are free to use other materials, and are not limited to these alone. Students pair up with a classmate by freely selecting a playing card from a deck of cards, each with a students name from the class written on it. The students name written on their randomly chosen card is their assigned partner. Together with this partner, students develop a question they would like to investigate, relevant to cohesion. They are asked to share their ideas with the class, and I record these ideas on easel paper. Day One: Period Two

Responding to Journal Entry prompts (see Appendix B.1) each pair of students selects one question they would like to investigate and designs a protocol for their investigation. My role is to facilitate students in the planning and strategies necessary to conduct their inquiry, and to help identify potentially impractical or problematic issues. Day Two: Period One

Students conduct the investigation that they developed on day one. Day Two: Period Two

Students record results and form conclusions of their investigations on individual laptops. If time allows, groups present their results and defend their conclusions with the class. Students are then asked to complete and submit a Journal Entry (see Appendix B.1 for specific prompts).

187

Appendix B

B.1: Journal Entry Prompts

POE NOE Inquiry Only

Questions Before Demonstration

1. I predict the following will happen during this demonstration:

Questions After Demonstration/Introduction to Lesson

1. I made the following important observation(s) of this event:

2. My explanation for this observed phenomenon is:

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I’m not interested at all and don’t want to know anything more about this”, and 5 being “I’m extremely interested and really want to know more about this”, rank your level of interest in investigating this phenomenon and tell me why it is or is not interesting to you.

2. Write down as many research questions as possible to investigate this phenomenon.

3. The question we are going to ask is: 4. Our investigation will follow this procedure: 5. I predict our findings will be:

Questions After Investigation

1. I made the following important observation(s) while conducting the investigation:

2. My conclusion to the investigation I conducted is: 3. In what way(s) did this unit interest you?

188

B.2: Guiding Questions for Final Class Reflection (#1-5)

and

Final Journal Entry Prompts (#6-8)

(Demonstration props from each unit will be visibly displayed during this discussion)

For both class discussion and journal:

1. Which of the three units did you like the most/least and why?

2. Which of the three units were you the most interested in/ least interested in?

Specifically which parts? Why?

3. Which of the 3 units were most valuable to you in setting up and designing your

inquiry experience and how?

4. Is there anything you would change in these units to make them better?

5. Is there anything about these three units that you’re still interested in?

For journal only:

6. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “the investigation that I designed was useless and did not

help me to understand the concept we were studying at all” and 5 being “the

investigation that I designed helped me to understand the concept we were studying

and made everything clear to me”, what number would you give to the units on:

Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

7. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I was not interested in any part of this unit” and 5 being “I

was completely interested in this entire unit”, what number would you give to the

units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

8. Did you discuss with anyone, or maybe even attempt to repeat, any of the

demonstrations that you observed in these units? Briefly explain?

189

B.3: Observation Chart (Identifiers of student interest will be visible to me during each unit and will be given to the Cohort observer):

Identifiers: Interjects, enthused, focused, completion of others sentences, leans in, stands, asks to move closer, asks to repeat step, asks classmate to move out of way, asks questions, contribution to discussion, eye gaze, overlapping speech, excited speech, short gaps in discourse, desire to go beyond requirements, preference for challenge, suppression of distraction, exchanging ideas, giving directions, justifying an answer, requesting clarification.

Put an X above the corresponding seat number when a student exhibits evidence of interest

Front of Room ____________ ____________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ___________ ___________ _________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ____________ ____________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ___________ ___________ _________ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ____________ ____________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ___________ ___________ _________ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ____________ ____________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ___________ ___________ _________

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

190

B.4: Teacher Log Prompts:

1. Any comments/observations about the execution of the demonstration and how it

could be improved in the future (pay attention in particular to: How much attention

was called to the NOE demonstration in order to generate interest in it?)

2. Any comments/observations about how the students went about their investigations

and the influence the demonstration may have had on it.

3. Were there any elements of the lesson that seemed to affect students’ design and

execution of their investigations?

4. Did any student show evidence of changing any misconceptions? If so, describe, and

indicate what influenced the change.

5. Any comments/observations about the students’ interest and curiosity, and the

influence the demonstration may have had on it.

6. Were there any elements of the lesson that seemed to affect student interest?

7. Did any student extend their engagement beyond the class? If so, report.

8. Any comments/observations about differences noticed in the three classes.

9. How do students respond/react to what appears to be conflicting information in

discrepant events?

191

B.5: Questions for Student Interview

1. In which of the three investigations do you think you had the best learning

experience? What do you think made it a good learning experience?

2. In which of the three investigations do you think you had the least rewarding learning

experience? What do you think made it the least rewarding learning experience?

3. Could any part of these units have been different to increase your level of

participation, or interest to participate?

192

Appendix C

C.1: Data Collection and Analysis Table

Research Questions: 1. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own

investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study? 2. How does a discrepant event demonstration using NOE impact: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own

investigation to explain the event; and (b) students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study? 3. What are similarities and differences in: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the

event; (b) students’ interest in learning about the scientific phenomenon under study?

193

RQ1a. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples

1. Journal Entry (day one)

For each student, I will compile a list of the predictions (from #1), observations (from #2), and explanations (from #3) made at this initial stage, and compare it with the research questions that same student generates in Data Source #2 to see if there is a relationship between the predictions/observations (i.e., the POE demonstration) and the research questions they generate. I will compile the responses to #3 for the entire class, and identify how many students came up with the same/similar research question. I will look for possible connections between the most “popular” research questions and the POE demonstration. I will rate the quality of the research question chosen and of the protocol being designed using the rubrics in Appendix C.2 and C.3 respectively. I will compile class average and distribution, as well as how many students received each rating. I will look for any relationships indicating that POE influences the development of research questions and the design of protocols.

1. I predict the following will happen during this demonstration:

2. I made the following important observation(s) of this event:

3. My explanation for this observed phenomenon is:

4. Write down as many research questions as possible to investigate this phenomenon.

5. The question we are going to ask is:

6. Our investigation will follow this procedure:

7. I predict our findings will be:

194

2. Journal Entry (day two)

For each student, I will rate the quality of the observations and conclusions using the rubrics in Appendix C.4 and C.5 respectively. I will compile class average and distribution, as well as how many students received each rating..

1. I made the following important observation(s) while conducting the investigation: 2. My conclusion to the investigation I conducted is:

3. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any indications of how students are designing, conducting, or interpreting their investigations and possible connections with the POE demonstration.

4. Teacher Log I will be looking for any of my observations that might indicate how specific elements of POE influence student investigations.

1. Any comments or observations about how students conducted their investigations and the influence the demonstration may have had on this.

2. Were there any elements of the unit that seemed to affect students’ design and execution of their investigations?

195

RQ1b. How does a discrepant event demonstration using POE impact: (b) students’ interest in learning more about the scientific phenomenon under study Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples

1. Journal Entry (day one)

I will look for indications of student interest and any ways in which these interests might be connected specifically to the POE demonstration. I will calculate the percentage of students indicating their interest at each level of the rating scale for POE.

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I’m not interested at all and don’t want to know anything more about this” and 5 being “I’m extremely interested and really want to know more about this”, rank your level of interest in investigating this phenomenon and tell me why it is or is not interesting to you.

2. Journal Entry (day two)

I will be looking for distinct features of the POE demonstration that influence student interest.

1. In what way(s) did this unit interest you?

3. Journal Entry (final class reflection)

I will calculate the percentage of students indicating their interest at each level of the rating scale for POE, following the final class reflection (see Appendix D.15). I will calculate the value assigned to each unit by each student following the final class reflection (see Appendix D.16).

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I was not interested in any part of this unit” and 5 being “I was completely interested in this entire unit”, what number would you give to the units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

2. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “the investigation that I designed was useless and did

196

not help me to understand the concept we were studying at all” and 5 being “the investigation that I designed helped me to understand the concept we were studying and made everything clear to me”, what number would you give to the units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

4. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any indications of student interest and possible connections with the POE demonstration.

5. Teacher Log

I will be looking for any of my observations that might indicate how specific elements of POE influence student interest. 1. Any comments or

observations about the presentation of the discrepant event and how it could be improved in the future, with particular attention on how much attention was called to the discrepant event in order to generate interest in it?

2. Any comments or observations about the students’ interest and curiosity, and the influence the demonstration may have had on it.

3. Were there any elements of the unit that seemed to

197

affect student interest?

4. Did any student extend their engagement beyond the class?

6. Observation Chart

I will compile the percent of students that showed engagement in the lesson, and look for relationships between this number and level of interest expressed in journal entries and lesson transcripts.

See Appendix B.3

198

RQ2a. How does a discrepant event demonstration using NOE impact: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples

1. Journal Entry (day one)

For each student, I will compile a list of the observations (from #1), and explanations (from #2) made at this initial stage, and compare it with the research questions that same student generates (from #3) to see if there is a relationship between the observations/explanations and the research questions they generate in an NOE. I will compile the responses to #3 for the entire class, and identify how many students came up with the same/similar research question. I will look for possible connections between the most “popular” research questions and the NOE. I will rate the quality of the research question chosen and of the protocol being designed using the rubrics in Appendix C.2 and C.3 respectively. I will compile class average and distribution, as well as how many students received each rating. I will look for any relationships indicating that NOE influences the development of research questions and the design of protocols.

1. I made the following important observation(s) of this event:

2. My explanation for this

observed phenomenon is: 3. Write down as many

research questions as possible to investigate this phenomenon.

4. The question we are going

to ask is: 5. Our investigation will

follow this procedure:

6. I predict our findings will be:

2. Journal Entry (day two)

For each student, I will rate the quality of the observations and conclusions using the rubrics in Appendix C.4 and C.5 respectively. I will compile class average and distribution, as well as how many students received each rating.

1. I made the following important observation(s) while conducting the investigation:

2. My conclusion to the investigation I conducted is:

199

3. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any indications of how students are designing, conducting, or interpreting their investigations and possible connections with the NOE.

4. Teacher Log I will be looking for any of my observations that might indicate how specific elements of NOE influence student investigations. 1. Any comments or

observations about how students conducted their investigations and the influence the demonstration may have had on it.

2. Were there any elements of the unit that seemed to affect students’ design and execution of their investigations?

200

RQ2b. How does a discrepant event demonstration using NOE impact: (b) students’ interest in learning more about the scientific phenomenon under study Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples

1. Journal Entry (day one)

I will look for indications of student interest and any ways in which these interests might be connected specifically to the NOE. I will calculate the percentage of students indicating their interest at each level of the rating scale for NOE.

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I’m not interested at all and don’t want to know anything more about this” and 5 being “I’m extremely interested and really want to know more about this”, rank your level of interest in investigating this phenomenon and tell me why it is or is not interesting to you.

2. Journal Entry (day two)

I will be looking for distinct features of the NOE demonstration that influence student interest.

1. In what way(s) did this unit interest you?

3. Journal Entry (final class reflection)

I will calculate the percentage of students indicating their interest at each level of the rating scale for NOE, following the final class reflection (see Appendix D.15). I will calculate the value assigned to each unit by each student following the final class reflection (see Appendix D.16).

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I was not interested in any part of this unit” and 5 being “I was completely interested in this entire unit”, what number would you give to the units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___. 2. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “the investigation that I designed was useless and did not help me to understand the concept we were studying at all” and 5 being “the investigation that I designed helped me to understand the

201

concept we were studying and made everything clear to me”, what number would you give to the units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

4. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any indications of student interest and possible connections with the NOE demonstration.

5. Teacher Log

I will be looking for any of my observations that might indicate how specific elements of NOE influence student interest.

1. Any comments or observations about the presentation of the discrepant event and how it could be improved in the future, with particular attention on how much attention was called to the discrepant event in order to generate interest in it?

2. Any comments or observations about the students’ interest and curiosity, and the influence the demonstration may have had on it.

3. Were there any elements of the unit that seemed to affect student interest?

4. Did any student extend their engagement beyond the class?

6. Observation Chart

I will compile the percent of students that showed engagement in the lesson, and look for relationships between this number and level of interest expressed in journal entries and lesson transcripts.

See Appendix B.3

202

RQ3a. How do POE, NOE and Lecture/Inquiry compare with respect to impact on: (a) how students design, conduct and interpret their own investigation to explain the event Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples 1. Journal Entry (day one)

I will examine and compare how observations and interpretations might be influenced by the different experiences of POE and NOE for the same unit. I will compare whether students are better able to identify key features of the demonstration in either POE or NOE for the same unit. I will compare the research questions generated by each class (POE, NOE, lecture/inquiry) in each unit to see whether (a) students develop more questions in one of these experiences, (b) students develop more detailed, rich, elaborate and scientific questions in one of these experiences, (c) students develop a broader range of questions, (d) the questions are testable or investigable (see Appendix C.2). I will compare protocols to examine whether their design is more/less detailed, rigorous, or scientific in any one particular lesson; POE, NOE and Lecture/inquiry (see Appendix C.3). I will be comparing POE, NOE, Lecture/inquiry to determine whether these experiences influence the depth, scientific reasoning, or any other characteristics of the predictions. I will be looking for whether protocol designs show any differences in depth, rigor or detail between POE, NOE and Lecture/inquiry (see Appendix C.3).

1. I made the following important observation(s) of this event: 2. My explanation for this observed phenomenon is:

3. Write down as many research questions as possible to investigate this phenomenon. 4. The question we are going to ask is: 5. Our investigation will follow this procedure: 6. I predict our findings will be: _

3. Journal Entry (day two)

I will examine whether observations are more meaningful and relevant to the research question for either POE or NOE (see Appendix C.4). I will compare the conclusions generated by each class (POE, NOE, Lecture/inquiry) in each unit to assess (a) their level of coherence, (b) their level of generalizability, (c) whether the central concept is articulated (see

1. I made the following important observation(s) while conducting the investigation: 2. My conclusion to the investigation I conducted is:

203

Appendix C.5).

4. Final Journal Entry (day three)

I will be looking for similarities/differences for what students feel are advantageous or not when designing investigations, particularly whether these differences exist between POE and NOE.

1. Which of the 3 units were most valuable to you in setting up and designing your inquiry experience and how?

5. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any evidence that investigations are designed, conducted, or interpreted in different ways between POE, NOE, and L/I.

6. Teacher Log

I will be looking for similarities and differences between the design and interpretation of the investigation between POE, NOE, and L/I. I will be looking for signs of student behavior of inquiry as operationilized for this paper and how these were influenced by POE and NOE.

1. Any comments or observations about the execution of the demonstration and how it could be improved in the future, with particular attention on how much attention was called to the demonstration in order to generate interest in it?

2. Any comments or observations about how students conducted their investigations and the influence the demonstration may have had on it.

3. Were there any elements of the unit that seemed to affect students’ design and execution of their investigations? 4. Any comments or observations of noticeable differences in the three classes.

204

7. Semi-Structure Student Interview

I will be looking for similarities/differences in characteristics of each experience (POE, NOE, and L/I) that students feel are advantageous or not when designing investigations, particularly whether these differences influence their learning experiences.

1. In which of the three investigations do you think you had the best learning experience? What do you think made it a good learning experience? 2. In which of the three investigations do you think you had the least rewarding learning experience? What do you think made it the least rewarding learning experience?

205

RQ3b. How do POE, NOE and Lecture/Inquiry compare with respect to impact on: (b) students’ interest in learning more about the scientific phenomenon under study Data Source How the Data Will be Used Question/Prompt Examples

1. Final Journal Entry (day three)

I will be looking for indications of interest and similarities/differences between POE, NOE, and L/I. I will be looking for signs of interest that extend beyond the classroom, specifically as they are similar/different between POE, NOE, and L/I.

1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “the investigation that I designed was useless and did not help me to understand the concept we were studying at all” and 5 being “the investigation that I designed helped me to understand the concept we were studying and made everything clear to me”, what number would you give to the units on: Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

2. Which of the three units did you like the most/least and why?

3. Did you discuss with anyone, or maybe even attempt to repeat, any of the demonstrations that you observed in these units? Briefly explain?

4. Which of the three units were you the most interested in/ least interested in? Specifically

206

which parts? Why? 5. Is there anything about

these three units that you’re still interested in?

6. Is there anything you would change in these units to make them better?

2. Lesson Transcripts

I will be looking for any ways in which interest is shown to be different between POE, NOE and lecture/inquiry in any facet of the units.

3. Teacher Log I will be looking for similarities and differences of student interest between POE, NOE and Lecture/inquiry in any facet of the units. 1. Any comments or

observations about the execution of the demonstration and how it could be improved in the future, with particular attention on how much attention was called to the demonstration in order to generate interest in it?

2. Any comments or observations about the students’ interest and curiosity, and the influence the POE/NOE demonstration may have had on this.

3. Were there any elements of POE/NOE unit that seemed to affect student interest?

207

4. Did any student extend their engagement beyond the class in either POE/NOE?

5. Any comments or observations describing differences noticed in the three classes.

6. What are the similarities and differences between POE and NOE for how students respond or react to what appears to be conflicting information in discrepant events?

4. Semi-

Structured Student Interview

I will be comparing those aspects of POE, NOE and Lecture/inquiry situations that students feel influence their interest in the experiences. 1. Could any part of these units

have been different to increase your level of participation, or interest to participate?

208

C.2. Rating form for quality of research question Students’ Research Questions

1

2

3

4

5

Rigor Question cannot be scientifically investigated.

Question is potentially investigable, but lacks scientific rigor and depth.

Question is investigable, but lacks scientific rigor and depth.

Question is investigable, has scientific rigor but lacks scientific depth.

Question is scientifically investigable with sound scientific rigor, demonstrating depth.

Centrality Question is not central to the concept at hand, does not address observable phenomena or identify a variable. The question will not lead to a deeper understanding of the concept.

Question is not central to the concept at hand. It does address observable phenomena but not which is central to the key concept. A variable is either not clearly identified or is inappropriate. The question probably will not lead to a deeper understanding of the concept.

Question is central to the concept at hand. It does address observable phenomenon but may not be central to the key concept. A variable is either not clearly identified or is inappropriate. The question may lead to a deeper understanding of the concept.

Question is central to the concept at hand. It does address observable phenomenon that is central to the key concept. A variable is identified, but may be inappropriate. The question has good potential to lead to a deeper understanding of the concept.

Question is central to the concept at hand. It does address observable phenomenon that is central to the key concept. An appropriate variable is identified. The question has great potential to lead to a deeper understanding of the concept.

Prediction Suitability

Prediction is not supported by either logical or scientific reasoning. It is not aligned with research question.

Prediction is not supported by either logical or scientific reasoning. It is aligned with research question but does not completely address it.

Prediction is not supported by either logical or scientific reasoning. It is aligned with research question and completely addresses it.

Prediction is supported by logical reasoning. It is aligned with research question and completely addresses it.

Prediction is supported by scientific reasoning. It is aligned with research question and completely addresses it.

209

C.3. Rating form for quality of research design/protocol Protocol

1

2

3

4

5

Rigor Procedure and planned measures lack scientific rigor and depth.

Either procedure or planned measures lack scientific rigor and depth.

Either procedure or planned measures lack scientific rigor or depth.

Either procedure or planned measures have scientific rigor and depth.

Both procedure and planned measures have scientific rigor and depth.

Level of Detail Procedure is incomplete, not logically sequenced and lacking necessary details.

Plan has a useful general approach, but lacks some logical sequence, detail, or clarity- difficult to follow.

Procedure is complete but lacks some logical sequence, detail or clarity.

Procedure is complete, has clarity but lacks complexity.

Procedure is complete and complex, with logical sequence and a high level of clarity,

Appropriateness to research question

Procedure and planned measures are inappropriate to the research question.

Procedure appropriately addresses the research question, but variable not clearly identified or planned measures are inappropriate.

Procedure appropriately addresses the research question, variable identified but lacks strong connection to research question, and planned measures are somewhat appropriate.

Procedure appropriately addresses the research question, with either strong connection to research question or planned measures are clearly appropriate.

Procedure appropriately and strongly addresses the research question, with strong connection to research question and very appropriate planned measures.

210

C.4. Rating form for quality of observation/data analysis Observation/ Data Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

Centrality

Observations are not meaningful or relevant to the question under study.

Observations are somewhat meaningful, but are not directly relevant to the question under study.

Observations are meaningful and relevant to the question under study, but are not always recognized or referred to.

Observations are meaningful and relevant to the question under study, but are inappropriately referred to.

Observations are meaningful and relevant to the question under study and are appropriately referred to.

Data Collection Rigor

Data is generally not collected in a sound, scientifically acceptable manner. Data is inaccurately represented or is missing.

Data is collected in a sound manner, but lacks depth of scientific rigor, and is misrepresented in written form. Necessary graphs/tables are not included.

Data is collected in a sound manner and shows depth of scientific rigor. Data is accurately represented in written form, but necessary graphs/tables are not included.

Data is collected in a sound, scientifically acceptable manner and shows depth of scientific rigor. Data is accurately represented in written form. Necessary graphs/tables are included, but are inappropriately referred to.

Data is collected in a sound, scientifically acceptable manner. Data is efficiently organized, accurately represented and appropriately referred to.

Detail of Observations

Observations lack detail, with no logical analysis.

Observations include details, but do not have scientific basis. Logical analyses of these observations are not made.

Observations include scientific detail, but logical analyses of these observations do not follow.

Observations include scientific detail, and are followed by logical analyses but strong connections are not made from them.

Observations include scientific details, are logically analyzed and appropriately referred to in a scientific manner. Strong connections are made from them.

211

C.5. Rating form for quality of conclusions Conclusion

1

2

3

4

5

Coherence

Conclusion is incoherent, is not clear and does not appear to be based on intelligible connections to observations. Does not apply any reasoning strategies.

Conclusion is coherent, but does not make connections to observations. Conclusion is not scientifically valid or consistent with scientific principles. Attempts to use reasoning strategies, but does so inappropriately or illogically.

Conclusion is coherent, makes connections to observations, but lacks scientific depth or rigor. Not scientifically valid or consistent with scientific principles. Reasoning appears to be appropriate, but lacks scientific rigor or depth.

Conclusion is coherent and consistent with evidence developed from observations. Conclusion is consistent with scientific principles, but lacks depth. Reasoning has appropriate scientific rigor.

Conclusion is clear and cogent, making strong, intelligible connections to observations. Conclusion is scientifically valid and consistent with scientific principles. Reasoning is appropriate and has scientific depth.

Generalizations Generalization is not made.

Generalization is made, but does not draw from experience, or is inappropriate scientifically or for the situation.

Generalization draws from experience, but is inappropriate scientifically or for the situation.

Generalization draws from experience, and is either appropriate scientifically or for the situation. May not seem to understand scope of generalizations.

Generalization draws from experience, and is appropriate both scientifically and to the situation. Seems to understand scope of generalizations.

Central Concept Articulation

Central concept is not addressed.

Central concept is addressed, but does not appear to be well understood.

Central concept is addressed and appears to be understood at a minimal level.

Central concept is addressed and appears to be clearly understood.

Central concept is addressed and student appears to have a deep understanding of it.

212

Appendix D.1

Number of investigable research questions per student.

Number of investigable RQ's per student 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 Unit 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1.7 Period 1 (POE) 1.4 15 10 4 1 Period 3 (L/I) 1.5 16 1 9 3 3 Period 8 (NOE) 2.3 13 1 2 3 6 1 Unit 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.9 Period 1 (L/I) 0.8 17 7 7 3 Period 3 (NOE) 4.8 16 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 Period 8 (POE) 3.3 14 4 4 4 2 Unit 3 (Cohesion) 3.5 Period 1 (NOE) 4.4 16 1 2 3 4 1 2 2 1 Period 3 (POE) 4.8 16 1 2 6 2 3 1 1 Period 8 (L/I) 1.5 14 1 6 6 1

Average POE: 3.2 Average NOE: 3.8 Average L/I: 1.3

213

Appendix D.2

Rating for rigor of research questions.

*Note: See Appendix C.2 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

3.4 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 3.1 16 0 4 6 6 0 0% 25% 38% 38% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 2.8 16 3 2 7 4 0 19% 13% 44% 25% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 4.4 14 0 0 0 8 6 0% 0% 0% 57% 43% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.7 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 1.9 16 8 3 4 1 0 50% 19% 25% 6% 0% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 3.7 17 0 0 7 8 2 0% 0% 41% 47% 12% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.5 13 3 4 3 2 1 23% 31% 23% 15% 8% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 3.2 46 Per 1 (NOE- 16 students) 3.1 16 1 2 8 5 0 6% 13% 50% 31% 0% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 3.6 16 0 1 7 5 3 0% 6% 44% 31% 19% Per 8 (L/I- 14 students) 2.9 14 2 4 4 1 3 14% 29% 29% 7% 21% Average POE 3.1 Average NOE 3.7 Average L/I 2.5

214

Appendix D.3

Rating for centrality of each research questions.

*Note: See Appendix C.2 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

3.7 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 2.8 16 4 2 4 6 0 25% 13% 25% 38% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 4.3 16 2 0 1 2 11 13% 0% 6% 13% 69% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 4.0 14 0 2 1 6 5 0% 14% 7% 43% 36% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 3.0 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.3 16 4 8 0 3 1 25% 50% 0% 19% 6% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 3.7 17 1 3 2 5 6 6% 18% 12% 29% 35% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.9 13 3 3 0 6 1 23% 23% 0% 46% 8% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 3.7 46 Per 1 (NOE- 16 students) 3.1 16 0 5 6 3 2 0% 31% 38% 19% 13% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 4.6 16 0 1 1 2 12 0% 6% 6% 13% 75% Per 8 (L/I- 14 students) 3.4 14 2 4 0 3 5 14% 29% 0% 21% 36% Average POE 3.4 Average NOE 3.6 Average L/I 3.3

215

Appendix D.4

Rating for prediction suitability of research questions.

*Note: See Appendix C.2 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

1.9 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 1.8 16 7 5 4 0 0 44% 31% 25% 0% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 1.9 16 7 5 2 2 0 44% 31% 13% 13% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 2.1 14 3 8 2 1 0 21% 57% 14% 7% 0% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 1.8 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.0 16 1 14 1 0 0 6% 88% 6% 0% 0% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 1.8 17 4 12 1 0 0 24% 71% 6% 0% 0% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 1.6 13 5 8 0 0 0 38% 62% 0% 0% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.4 46 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 1.9 17 4 10 3 0 0 24% 59% 18% 0% 0% Per 3 (POE- 17 students) 2.6 17 1 8 5 3 0 6% 47% 29% 18% 0% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 2.7 12 1 6 2 2 1 8% 50% 17% 17% 8% Average POE 2.0 Average NOE 1.9 Average L/I 2.2

216

Appendix D.5

Rating for protocol rigor

*Note: See Appendix C.3 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

2.7 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 2.8 16 3 2 7 4 0 19% 13% 44% 25% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 2.6 16 3 4 6 3 0 19% 25% 38% 19% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 2.8 14 1 4 6 3 0 7% 29% 43% 21% 0% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.9 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.5 16 4 5 3 3 1 25% 31% 19% 19% 6% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 3.3 17 2 2 5 5 3 12% 12% 29% 29% 18% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.8 13 1 5 3 4 0 8% 38% 23% 31% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.8 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.4 17 5 6 2 3 1 29% 35% 12% 18% 6% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 3.2 16 2 3 4 4 3 13% 19% 25% 25% 19% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 3.1 12 0 4 3 5 0 0% 33% 25% 42% 0% Average POE 2.9 Average NOE 2.8 Average L/I 2.7

217

Appendix D.6

Rating for protocol detail

*Note: See Appendix C.3 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

3.1 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 3.1 16 2 4 2 6 2 13% 25% 13% 38% 13% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 3.1 16 1 3 6 6 0 6% 19% 38% 38% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 3.1 14 0 5 4 4 1 0% 36% 29% 29% 7% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.7 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.4 16 5 4 4 2 1 31% 25% 25% 13% 6% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 2.8 17 3 5 4 3 2 18% 29% 24% 18% 12% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 3.0 13 2 2 3 6 0 15% 15% 23% 46% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 3.0 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.5 17 6 5 0 4 2 35% 29% 0% 24% 12% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 3.4 16 2 3 2 5 4 13% 19% 13% 31% 25% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 3.4 12 2 0 2 7 1 17% 0% 17% 58% 8% Average POE 3.2 Average NOE 2.8 Average L/I 2.9

218

Appendix D.7

Rating for Appropriateness of Protocol to Research Question

*Note: See Appendix C.3 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

2.8 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 2.9 16 2 4 4 6 0 13% 25% 25% 38% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 2.5 16 3 5 5 3 0 19% 31% 31% 19% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 3.0 14 0 4 6 4 0 0% 29% 43% 29% 0% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.9 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.2 16 4 7 3 2 0 25% 44% 19% 13% 0% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 3.3 17 2 2 5 5 3 12% 12% 29% 29% 18% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 3.3 13 0 2 5 6 0 0% 15% 38% 46% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.9 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.2 17 4 7 4 2 0 24% 41% 24% 12% 0% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 3.3 16 1 3 5 4 3 6% 19% 31% 25% 19% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 3.4 12 0 1 5 6 0 0% 8% 42% 50% 0% Average POE 3.2 Average NOE 2.8 Average L/I 2.6

219

Appendix D.8

Rating for Centrality of Observations

*Note: See Appendix C.4 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

2.7 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 2.4 16 2 5 9 0 0 13% 31% 56% 0% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 2.8 16 3 2 6 5 0 19% 13% 38% 31% 0% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 2.9 14 1 2 9 1 1 7% 14% 64% 7% 7% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.6 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.5 16 3 5 5 3 0 19% 31% 31% 19% 0% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 2.8 17 2 3 9 2 1 12% 18% 53% 12% 6% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.5 13 1 4 8 0 0 8% 31% 62% 0% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.6 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.2 17 3 9 4 0 1 18% 53% 24% 0% 6% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 2.9 16 1 4 7 4 0 6% 25% 44% 25% 0% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 2.9 12 2 3 3 2 2 17% 25% 25% 17% 17% Average POE 2.6 Average NOE 2.6 Average L/I 2.7

220

Appendix D.9

Rating for Data Collection Rigor

*Note: See Appendix C.4 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

2.3 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 1.9 16 5 8 2 1 0 31% 50% 13% 6% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 2.5 16 3 5 6 1 1 19% 31% 38% 6% 6% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 2.6 14 2 5 4 3 0 14% 36% 29% 21% 0% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.6 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.5 16 3 6 4 2 1 19% 38% 25% 13% 6% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 2.8 17 2 4 8 2 1 12% 24% 47% 12% 6% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.5 13 2 2 9 0 0 15% 15% 69% 0% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.9 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.6 17 3 6 4 2 2 18% 35% 24% 12% 12% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 3.1 16 2 3 5 3 3 13% 19% 31% 19% 19% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 2.8 12 1 4 5 0 2 8% 33% 42% 0% 17% Average POE 2.5 Average NOE 2.7 Average L/I 2.6

221

Appendix D.10

Rating for Detail of Observations

*Note: See Appendix C.4 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating

UNIT 1 (Density) Ave. # st's 1 2 3 4 5

2.6 46 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 2.5 16 1 7 7 1 0 6% 44% 44% 6% 0% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 3.0 16 0 5 7 3 1 0% 31% 44% 19% 6% Per 8 (NOE- 14 students) 2.4 14 3 5 4 2 0 21% 36% 29% 14% 0% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 2.6 46 Per 1 (L/I- 16 students) 2.8 16 2 4 6 3 1 13% 25% 38% 19% 6% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 2.6 17 1 8 5 3 0 6% 47% 29% 18% 0% Per 8 (POE- 13 students) 2.4 13 2 5 5 1 0 15% 38% 38% 8% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 2.9 45 Per 1 (NOE- 17 students) 2.4 17 1 10 4 2 0 6% 59% 24% 12% 0% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 2.8 16 1 7 3 5 0 6% 44% 19% 31% 0% Per 8 (L/I- 12 students) 3.8 12 0 1 4 4 3 0% 8% 33% 33% 25% Average POE 2.6 Average NOE 2.5 Average L/I 3.1

222

Appendix D.11

Rating for coherence of conclusions.

*Note: See Appendix C.5 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating Rating: 1 2 3 4 5

Ave. # st's

UNIT 1 (Density) 2.5 46 Period 1 (POE) 2.1 16 4 7 4 1 0 25% 44% 25% 6% 0% Period 3 (L/I) 2.6 16 3 3 7 3 0 19% 19% 44% 19% 0% Period 8 (NOE) 2.6 14 3 4 3 3 1 21% 29% 21% 21% 7% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 1.9 46 Period 1 (L/I) 2.4 16 2 5 9 0 0 13% 31% 56% 0% 0% Period 3 (NOE) 1.5 17 9 7 1 0 0 53% 41% 6% 0% 0% Period 8 (POE) 1.6 13 8 2 3 0 0 62% 15% 23% 0% 0% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 1.9 46 Period 1 (NOE) 1.8 17 5 10 2 0 0 29% 59% 12% 0% 0% Period 3 (POE) 2.0 17 5 8 3 1 0 29% 47% 18% 6% 0% Period 8 (L/I) 2.0 12 4 5 2 1 0 33% 42% 17% 8% 0% Average POE 1.9 Average NOE 2.0 Average L/I 2.4

223

Appendix D.12

Rating for Central Concept Articulation of conclusions.

*Note: See Appendix C.5 rubric used in this analysis.

Average and % of students receiving each rating Rating: 1 2 3 4 5

Ave. # st's

UNIT 1 (Density) 2.4 46 Period 1 (POE) 1.9 16 9 2 3 2 0 56% 13% 19% 13% 0% Period 3 (L/I) 3.1 16 5 0 0 10 1 31% 0% 0% 63% 6% Period 8 (NOE) 2.2 14 7 2 2 1 2 50% 14% 14% 7% 14% UNIT 2 (Gas Molecules) 1.7 46 Period 1 (L/I) 2.1 16 6 5 3 2 0 38% 31% 19% 13% 0% Period 3 (NOE) 1.2 17 14 2 1 0 0 82% 12% 6% 0% 0% Period 8 (POE) 1.9 13 6 4 2 0 1 46% 31% 15% 0% 8% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 1.3 46 Period 1 (NOE) 1.0 17 17 0 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Period 3 (POE) 1.2 17 15 0 2 0 0 88% 0% 12% 0% 0% Period 8 (L/I) 2.0 12 7 2 0 2 1 58% 17% 0% 17% 8% Average POE 1.7 Average NOE 1.4 Average L/I 2.4

224

Appendix D.13

Independent observer engagement data.

Percentage of Students Observed as Engaged According to Date and Unit Average per Unit UNIT 1 (Density) 9/29/2009 55% Period 1- POE 59% Period 3- L/I 44% Period 8- NOE 62% UNIT 2 (Gas Mol) 10/14/2009 41% Period 1- L/I 18% Period 3- NOE 56% Period 8- POE 50% UNIT 3 (Cohesion) 10/22/2009 45% Period 1- NOE 57% Period 3- POE 47% Period 8- L/I 31% "Average" L/I 31% "Average" POE 52% "Average" NOE 58%

225

Appendix D.14

Students’ rating for interest in each unit

(as rated immediately after the demonstration/lecture)

On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I’m not interested at all and don’t want to know anything more about this”, and 5 being “I’m extremely interested and really want to know more about this”,

rank your level of interest in investigating this phenomenon and tell me why it is or is not interesting to you.

Average and % of students rating Unit 1/ Day 1 (Density) Ave. #st's 1 2 3 4 5 3.7 44 Per 1 (POE- 16 students) 3.4 16 1 2 5 5 3 6% 13% 31% 31% 19% Per 3 (L/I- 16 students) 4.3 16 0 0 5 2 9 0% 0% 31% 13% 56% Per 8 (NOE- 12 students) 3.3 12 1 1 6 2 2 8% 8% 50% 17% 17% Unit 2/ Day 1 (Gas Molecules) 4.0 48 Per 1 (L/I- 17 students) 3.7 17 0 2 6 4 5 0% 12% 35% 24% 29% Per 3 (NOE- 17 students) 4.1 17 0 2 2 6 7 0% 12% 12% 35% 41% Per 8 (POE- 14 students) 4.1 14 0 0 5 2 7 0% 0% 36% 14% 50% Unit 3/ Day 1 (Cohesion) 3.9 45 Per 1 (NOE- 16 students) 4.1 16 0 1 3 5 7 0% 6% 19% 31% 44% Per 3 (POE- 16 students) 4.0 16 0 0 5 6 5 0% 0% 31% 38% 31% Per 8 (L/I- 14 students) 3.4 13 0 2 6 3 2 0% 15% 46% 23% 15% Average POE 3.8 Average NOE 3.9 Average L/I 3.8

226

Appendix D.15

Students’ rating for interest of each unit following the final class reflection.

On a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I was not interested in any part of this unit” and 5 being “I was completely interested in this entire unit”, what number would you give to the units on:

Density ____, Molecular Arrangement ____, and Cohesion ___.

Average and % of students rating Rating: 1 2 3 4 5

Ave. # st's

Period 1 3.8 42 Density (POE) 3.6 14 0 1 5 6 2 0% 7% 36% 43% 14% Gal Mol (L/I) 3.8 14 0 1 4 6 3 0% 7% 29% 43% 21% Cohesion (NOE) 4.1 14 0 2 1 5 6 0% 14% 7% 36% 43% Period 3 3.5 48 Density (L/I) 3.4 16 1 3 4 4 4 6% 19% 25% 25% 25% Gas Mol (NOE) 4.5 16 1 0 1 2 12 6% 0% 6% 13% 75% Cohesion (POE) 2.4 16 5 4 3 3 1 31% 25% 19% 19% 6% Period 8 3.5 39 Density (NOE) 3.2 13 0 2 7 3 1 0% 15% 54% 23% 8% Gas Mol (POE) 4.4 13 0 1 1 3 8 0% 8% 8% 23% 62% Cohesion (L/I) 2.9 13 4 0 4 3 2 31% 0% 31% 23% 15% Average POE 3.4 Average NOE 4.0 Average L/I 3.4

227

Appendix D.16

Students’ rating for value of each unit following final class reflection.

Average and % of students rating Rating: 1 2 3 4 5

Ave. # st's

Period 1 3.8 42 Density (POE) 3.5 14 0 2 6 3 3 0% 14% 43% 21% 21% Gal Mol (L/I) 3.5 14 0 3 4 4 3 0% 21% 29% 29% 21% Cohesion (NOE) 4.4 14 0 0 3 3 8 0% 0% 21% 21% 57% Period 3 3.2 48 Density (L/I) 3.8 16 0 3 4 3 6 0% 19% 25% 19% 38% Gas Mol (NOE) 3.6 16 1 3 2 5 5 6% 19% 13% 31% 31% Cohesion (POE) 2.3 16 3 7 5 1 0 19% 44% 31% 6% 0% Period 8 3.5 39 Density (NOE) 3.4 13 1 3 2 4 3 8% 23% 15% 31% 23% Gas Mol (POE) 3.9 13 0 1 3 5 4 0% 8% 23% 38% 31% Cohesion (L/I) 3.3 13 1 3 4 1 4 8% 23% 31% 8% 31% Average POE 3.2 Average NOE 3.8 Average L/I 3.5

228

Appendix D.17

Unit 2- POE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. if you put an overflow can in upsidedown into water and vegtible oil, would the inside get wet because of the liquad of the vegtible oil push up the molucles keeping the can drie?

i predict that the overflow can that is put into the beaker containig vegtible oil will be wet on the inside and the overflow can with thats in the beaker with water wont be drie.

that even though the vegtible oil is dencer than the water , its still not enough to push the molucles up.

2. Does water molecules push out the gas molecules and particels out of a object.

The air will push out of the cup and leave the beaker.

My conculions is that the molecules in water can push the molecules and particles out of a gas and move the gas right out of the object.

3. for our experment we will see if air molecuals will react the same way if the beaker are an unusal shape

i predict that both towels will stay dry.

My conclusion is that the paper towels stayed dry because of the air molicules.

4. can water pus water out of a cup

i predict the air will come out

that water molecules are stronger than air molecules.

5. Our expirement is going to question whether temp changes the gas molecuels.

I think the temp will afect the molecuels. I think the cushy bals in the hot water will get wet.

I conclude that temp makes a difference how the cup is diplacing the water.I conclude this because the ball did not get wet in the hot water. The is because when something is heated the molecuels get less denseley packed.

6. Does it matter what the amount of air molecules are to effect the results?

I think the small beaker with less will not get wet.

I conclude that the amount of air molcules doesn't matter because both didn't get wet. The more you repeat the experiment,the wetter it will get.

7. For our expirement we are seeing if the air molecules will react by floating outside the beaker even if the shape is unorthodox.

I predict that the paper towel will slow the the realese of the air molecules but the paper towel will remain dry.

After conducting this expirement we observed that the unortodox shape and the extra paper towel did have an effct. We beleive that the the beaker taking up space in the other beaker couled with the extra paper towel

229

kept air molecules inside the beakers. This explians why the beakers were floating and the lconstant air release.

8. Wwill a cup with a hole in the side affect the gas taking up space than a cup with the hole in the top?

I predict that the paper towel will be dry with the one with a hole in the side, and wet with the other one.

The cup with the hole in the top and paper towel did get wet, it also bubbled, and the cup with the hole in the side with paper towel in it did not get wet, and did not bubble.

9. will a cup with a hole in the side affect the gas taking up space than a cup with a hole in the top?

that the one with the hole on the side of the cup will stay dry and the cup with the hole on the top will get wet.

My hypothisis was that both cups would have water in them because the air molecules would escape from the holes. I was half wrong. The cup with the hole in the side stayed dry because the air had no place to go because the water was blocking the hole.

10. Would the paper towel still stay dry if we used a different sized container, like a graduated cylinder.

I predict that the paper towel will stay dry

I was wrong because I thought that the sponge would stay dry.

11. Does cold or hot water make a difference on the gas molecules

The koshy balls will get wet The gas molecules are packed tighter in hot water

12. does it matter what the amount of air molecules are to effect the results?

I predict that our findings will be that the beaker with less paper will have more molecules thatn the one with more paper.

I conclued that the more paper towel in the beaker the more wet it will get. I also concluded that the one with more paper towel takes in more water when put underwater. If we put the beakers in fast the one with less paper towel gets wet as well as the one with more aper towel.

13. What if you used a different sized object, but still used a wad of paper?

dont think that the paper towel will get wet at all even though it is in a different shaped container, like a graduated cylinder. I think that any container with

My conclusion is that the sponge got a little wet at the top. i think that because the graduated cylinder is more thin than the beaker, so the water will get pushed up

230

sides that are surrounding the paper towel will not get wet.

more.

231

Appendix D.18

Unit 2- NOE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. To see if the air excapes if we have no wight.

that the air will come out That the air came out

2. If the air will escape if there is no wight on top of the beaker

The water will fill the smaller beaker with water.

The water will not fill the small baeker unless the small small beaker is tilted

3. What would happen if you put the beaker in the other way around and covered it with something? Would the cover come off? Would it be filled with water?

I think that water may leak in as we put it in because of the spout but maybe it might not leak out until later.

To keep the paper towel dry, the container needs a little more of a cover than a weight so that the water doesn't leak in and that the oxygen does not go out.

4. if you had a two diffrent liquids what will happen with the expirement would it change in any way.

i predict that the expirement will not change from the expirement we did in class

in my conclusion i conlude that the water/ with vegetable oil changed the expirement than just water. adding the vegetable oil made the paper towel inside of the little beaker get wet. the beker with just water stayed dry just as we thought. doing this expirement changed are thoughts a tiny bit.

5. dos the shape of the contaner change anything

i dont think that it rely matter itll not fill with water

i was right it dident make a diference they both stayed drie it did not matter the shape

6. What would happen if you used a different type of a liquid for the experiment?

1. Explosion 2. Gas 3. Same result as water 4.Small beaker rises up

The vegetable oil came with different results than water because it could make air sockets and because of its thickness it takes more time for it to fill up the small beaker.

7. What woould happen if oneself was to put the beaker upside down? And if it was covered?

It will get wet. My conclusion is that silly putty is the answer to all of life's problems, NOT. Actually I observed a lot of things like the weight kept the beaker down that's about all.

232

8. if we put food coloring and sugar and salt in the water then put a paper in the small beaker what would happen??

the paper did not get wet at all in this experiment.

9. What would happen if you poured the water into the large beaker after the small beaker was already turned upside down on the bottom of the large beaker with the weight on top?

I think that the control will hold the water out longer.

I conclude from doing this experiment that if you put a beaker in a bucket before the water is poured in the bucket the air molecules do not get pushed out of the beaker any faster than they would if you put the beaker in after the water was poured. I conclude this because the water rised in both beakers at the same, slow rate.

10. would it make a difference if we changed the shape of the small becer

it will not make a difference if you put the container in upside down then it wont get wet but if you put it in right side up then it will because the water gets in the container.

11. does the shape of the container chnge anything?

it wont matter, neither will fill with water.

if you put a continer in the right way, upside down, the paper towel will stay dry. i did nt matter that the containers wrer different shapes and sizes. our hypothesis was correct.

12. What would happen if you used a different kind of liquid for the same experiment?

I predict no matter what kind of liquid, the same result will happen of the water.

In doing this experiment, we have concluded that, if you put a generally small, glass beaker upside down with a weight on it and have it surrounded by water or oil in a generaly large container, the small container will contain the air inside. Conclusion Statement: Normal air to our knowlege will try to go up,(if it's in water or oil) if it's in a large enough quantity.

233

13. Would would hapen if we added food coloring, sugar, and salt in the water, would it affect the napkin being wet??

I predict that the water will not go inside the small beaker and the napkin will stay dry.

The paper towel remained dry in this experiment.

14. if you had two different liquids would it effect anything? (you would have to have two beakers for the different liquids)

that the veggie water and the regular water will have the same results

my predictions were wrong and so was my observstion, the veggie-oil-beaker-paper-towel did get wet and the water-beaker-paper-towel did not. I conclude that the water still will not get the paper towel wet.

15. What would happen if you put a differnet liquid into the beaker?

I perdict that the papper towel will stay dry.

We thought that all the water would rush in. It dosent nake sence how it wouldnt rush in right when we put it in. We kept on trying and trying but the water would not make the sponge wet.

16. what if you poured the water in the large beaker after the small beaker upside down in the large beaker with the weight on top.

that the control will hold the water out longer.

changing the order and put the beaker in before we put the water in won't make a differance in gas molecules even if more water pressure is put on the beaker and air molecules

17. what would happen if you put a differant liqued into the beaker?

I predict that the paper towl will stay dry.

That even though we used the salt water insted of regular water, it had the same effect. The sponge did not get wet insted it stayed dry. the sponge that was inside the smaller beaker, we thought that te water would go straight up once we put the beaker with he sponge into the water, we thought as the beaker got pushed down into the bigger beaker that the water would go up inside the beaker and hit the sponge atimmaticly. But the water did not tutch the sponge at all.

234

Appendix D.19

Unit 2- L/I: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. will air stay in a balloon when you fiil it with air, don't tie it, then put it under water?

half of the air will stay in the baloon, and the other half will fill with the water.

my conclusion is that the air in the baloon must have had volume to fill the balloon, and the gas reacted in the balloon by rushing out of the balloon and pushing the water away, and that force made it so no water went in the balloon, untill almost all the air was out of the balloon.

2. what will happen if u fill a huge beaker with water then fill a balloon with water and red food coloring then pop it under the water?

i predict that the balloon will float and it will look very cool when we pop it espiecaly with the food coloring.

that the corn syrup reduced the the explosion and made the bubles rise slower

3. will air stay in a baloon when you fill it with air, don't tie it then put it under water?

i predict that all of the air in the baloon will go out but it will make te water all wavey.

my conclusion is the air had volume to fill the baloon and when it was in the water and we let go it was reacting by rushing out of the baloon.and when air is rushing out not alot of water will fill it in.

4. Will Air take up space and push the corn syrup out the way?

that the air will push the corn syrup out the way

that air takes up space in water and out of water and depending on the volume of the air it takes up more space because there wasn't that much air in the balloon because we completely filled it up with oil and the oil still came rushing to the surface

5. What will happen if you pop a balloon under water?

I predict that maybe the gas will empty and go above the water.

That gas has volume because I think that when the balloon got popped the water came out because the air took up that space.

6. if we where to take a balloon and fill it half with air and half with water and

i think that the air will drain pretty fast.

that the air leakes out about twice as fast as the water. also air has some mass

235

poked a hole in the balloon how fast would the air leak out?

because when you squeezed the balloon it would come out faster. and when wwe did this with the water it actually made the hole bigger.

7. If we filled a ballown will water and when it is under water and we will pop it what will happen?

I predict after we pop it the air bubbles will float to the top.

Is that means the air takes up space because the air got pushed up to the top so te volume just came strait up.

8. What would happen if we popped a balloon underwater?

I predict that the larger balloon will have many bubbles and the smaller balloon's bubbles will come up faster with less bubbles.

I concluded that air does have volume to be able to travel through water, and the air travels very fast through the water, so fast, we didn't even see it happen.

9. we are going to put a ballon under water and pop it

the air will explode up and out of the balllon

If air is in alot of pressure, when popped it will release really fast.

10. what happens when you pop a ballon under water

i predict that when we pop it it is going to expand the water and it going to be a big air bubble

is if we put alot of presure on the air then pop it. Then it would make a big pop becasue we put pressure on it.

11. If we put something in a ballon and then filled it with air will it sink? Afterwards pop it in the water what will happen?

The ballon will sink and after popping it air bubble will float up.

The balloon popped and the air bubbles were to fast to see what happened but we did the marbles sink down.

12. What will happen if we fill two balloons (one filled with food coloring, cooking oil and air, the other with just air.), put them under water, and pop them? (what will the air do? does it make a difference?)

I predict that the balloon will float, even with the food coloring and when we pop it, the entrails will float up to the top and the food coloring will disperse.

When we popped the balloons, the cooking oil slowed the air flow from the water. In this way, some of the air got caught. With the ballon that only had air, it flew out of the water making a big splash. So yes, the water takes up space and makes a difference.

13. how long will it take gas particles to get out if we filled a balloon half full of water and half full of air then poppped a hole

the gas particles will take around 30 seconds to escape

it takes about 24 seconds for gas molecules to escape a balloon half full of air, and half full of water.

14. Does water flow ito a cup when put under water

the small beaker will stay empty

The test tube, the beaker, and the small beaker with

236

upsidown. the sponge ball in it stayed completly empty, or dry on the inside even when put totally underwater. This proves that air takes up spce because it took up all the space in the beaker/test tube and didn't allow water to get in.

15. If u squeeze it will the balloon decrease or increase its volume or will it pop or take up space

The vegi oil in the balloon will take up more space

The oil has more gas than water in a balloon.

16. Will air take up space and push corn syrup out of the way?

I think the corn syrup won't go different directions because corn syrup is stronger than water.

Air really does have mass and take up space.

237

Appendix D.20

Unit 3- POE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. What would happen if we used a thiker liqud, like corn syrupe?

That there will be a bigger buble than the water peney.

That the water, because it has less density can fill up more of the penny that vegaptel oil.

2. What if you use different liquids compared to water and see what liquid can have more drops.

The oil will hold less drops than the water on the penny

The oil can hold more drops on the penny then the drops of water on the penny.

3. Would a thicker liquid , like syrup, stay on the penny better?

I think that the vegetable oil molecules might not hold themselves together as well as the water because it is a different kind of liquid and I think that it won't form such a big bubble of liquid.

Dropping water on a penny, you will get about a third more drops than vegetable oil.

4. we are going to compare a diffrent liquids on the penny we will see if the penny with water on it will take more dropsof water than a penny with vegtable oil on it

i predict that the penny with water on it will take more drops than the penny with vegetable oil because it is thicker than water

i conclude that the penny that we put vegetable oil on took more drops than the penny we put water on. so we proved that the penny with vegetable oil on it can take more drops with a penny with water on it.

5. differnt heat of water, how would that change tha expirement

i prodict that the cold water will hold more

that it dosnt mater if the water is hot or cold they are the same

6. What would happen if we used cooking oil and a penny?

I predict that the vegetable oil will fit less drops on the penny than water.

The conclusion to this investigation is that vegetable oil has more density than water so it fits less drops on a penny than water.

7. we could try differant heats of water, how would that change the ammount of drops it holds?

I predict that the penny that is cold will hold more water than then hot one.

I observed that the ammounts held were the same every time, so we are a bit inconclusive at this point. Actually that's my conclusion.

8. what is the result if u change the temp.

i predict that the cold one will hold te least cause it might reeze the water the

i conclued that the cold penny holds more than the hot penny and the room

238

normal one will hold more then the hot one will evaporate the water so it will hold more than all the others.

temp. penny

9. How would the results vary if we froze the penny and then put the water droplets on it?

I predict that the frozen penny will hold less water than a penny that is kept at room temperature.

I conclude that a frozen penny and a penny kept at room temperature hold the same amount of water, therefore temperature does not have an affect on how much water a penny can hold. This may seem like a strange conclusion because the variable held less water than the control, but I still think this because I believe that there were some variables that were not taken into account. For example, the frozen penny was moldy and rusted, and maybe the drops of water that we put on the frozen penny were larger than the drops of water that were put on the room temperature penny. Also, we compared our results with another group that did the same experiment, and their frozen penny held more water than the room temperature penny. So, all in all, I believe that temperature does not have an affect on how much water a penny can hold.

10. what is the result if we change the temp of the penny.

i predict that the frozen penny will hold less water because the the water will slip off and i think the room temp. peny will hold the most and the hot penny will hold less because i think the watefr will evaporate

my prediction was a little off sincethe cold one held more and the hot one held less and the room temp held the most

239

11. What would happen if we used vegetable oil?

I think less vegetable oil will stay on the penny than water, becuse it is less packed and dense , so the bubble wont hold.

The penny did not hold as much vegatable oil as water. The penny spilled over with 26 drops of oil ad with 37 drops of water. I guessed the penny would hold less. I think it happened because vegetable oil is less dense, and he molecules are farther apart. theydo not hold together as well so they fell apart

12. How would a frozen penny compare to a normal penny if you dropped water on the penny.

I predict that it will take fewer drops for the water to over flow the penny.

Well, our since our variable had slightly different results than the control, we compared our results with another group who conducted the same experiment and their frozen penny held four more drops of water than ours did. Also our frozen penny was moldy. This is why we think the frozen penny held less water. There were probably also many other small changes and differences between our and there experiment. Our main conclusion is that the temperature of the penny doesn't effect how many drops of water a penny can hold.

13. What would happen if we used cooking oil and a quarter?

I predict that the vegetable oil will fit the same amount of drops on the penny as the water on the penny.

My conclusion to the investigation I conducted is that water is able to fit more amounts of drops on the penny than oil because oil is thicker than water.

14. we have two pennys, one with just water and one with soda, what will happen?

I predict that the vegtable oil will break sooner because it is thicker and it is heavier so it wont hold as much, so, the water will hold longer and will break

Our prediction was right! (veggie oil will break sooner then the water) We think that because the water is thinnner and will hold more and the veggie oil is thick so

240

after the veggie oil. it wont hold as much for that reason.

15. We have two pennys, 1 with just water and one with soda what will happen.

I perdict that the vegtible will burst before the water because it is soo much thiker and heavier than the water, so the water will hold longer.

perdicted that the vegtible oil would breack before the water because it is thicker and more heavy and we were right the vegtible oil broke before the water it only took 16 drops for it to break. I think the vegtible oil broke before the water because it is more thick and hevy than water the water is thin and light. But we kept on trying to get diffrent reusults but it took less drops neach time maybe because it was not dry.

16. what would happen if we used a different liquid like cooking oil?

more drops will stay on the penny with cooking oil than with water

my conclusion is that it doesn't make a big differance if you use oil instead of water

17. What would happen if you used a differant liquid like syrup ore cooking oil or juice?

I predict the vegtible oil will go over the side of the penny and will not make a bubble because it is to heavey and heavyer than water.

I did not think the vegtible oil and the ater would have the same # of drops. ( Almost the same #) I thought they would be nowhere near the same amount of drops.

241

Appendix D.21

Unit 3- NOE: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. if you use a HUGE penny, can you wet your finger and touch the water, and not disrupt the shape?

i think the shape will not be disrupted, because the water wil make it so your finger will just slide in and out,easily.

my conclusion is that we thought that whatever you did, you would not disrupt the water, but in fact if you don't touch the bottom of the penny with your wet finger, when you take your finger out the water will go back to it's original shape. also if you do touch the penny, you will se that the water will flow over the penny.

2. will the water stay on the coin if it's size and or texture is different

i prdict that the water will stay on all the coins except the jumbo coin.

my conclusion is that with all the coins we teasted water stays on all the and layers up above the rim of each coin.

3. do difrent bases efect the shape of the water

difrent shapes will efect the shape of the blob

the shape of the watter is efected by the sape of the base

4. will corn surup stay on the penny the same way the water did?

I predict that the vegtable oil will stay on the penny like the water but if we move the penn the vegtable oil wll start to come off the penny.

My conclusion is that the veg. oil doesnt stay on the penny as well as the water, i think that because the veg. oil is more slipery than the water so the easier it is tobrake of the penny. and when you move the water it stays on but when you move the veg. oil it slippes off.

5. What would happen if we use different objects and shapes?

I think it will stay on round objects and fall off of flat things but it will stay on things with a rimm around the egde because the edge will keep the water from coming out

water will stay on certain objects but i wanted to test more objects to see if it would work on those because most of the objects we used were were coins. We KNOW that water will stay on coins but maybe not a spoon or a book or something so I wish we had more time to test some

242

more. So my conclusion is yes,water will stay on most objects such as coins wood and rounded out things.

6. What will happen if you used a different coin, and put a different type of liquid on it?

I predict that maybe the vegetable oil, will not stay like the water instead it will fall over.

That maybe all liquids can form a little bubble on maybe all the coins.

7. what would happen if we where to put water on a coin or flat seface with an indent or outdent in the middle?

i think that the water bubble will change shape to have a ident or outdent.

my conclusion is that the water molicules follow each other so that when we put a nail on and then added water to the penny it was flat ecept around the nail where it sloped up. Also the water would come up ound the end of the penny when you just barrly touched it to the water.

8. If we poured water on top of wax from a coin would the water not spread or will it spread out?

I think sinse there is wax on a piece of paper the water will stay in one place.

I think the water kept together on the crayon with paper because wax could help it stick so it comes in with the water to hold it together so it could hold more. when it was just with the penny it could not hold as much water together so it would only hold the stuff on top of it.

9. what happens with different bases?

I predict that the water will stay on a few of the surfaces, like the square, but it will slide off the other shapes, like a triangle.

I think tat yes, water will stay on top of most objects without spilling over. I've concluded this because out of all the objects we tested, (which were a penny, a nickle, a dime, a quarter, a jumbo penny, a wood block, an evaporation dish, and a watch glass), water did not overflow, but continued going up the top of the object, making a layer of liquid on the object. If you go to eye level of the object being tested, you can clearly

243

see the water is different and higher than the object it sits on.

10. What woulld happen if intead of using water we use oil and put it on the penny or whatever coin and take some away with the eye dropper and see the shape.

I think when we take out the oil, it will maybe go flat instead of keep the same shappe.

While we learned on the side of the experiment that vegetable oil is less dense than food coloring. Also the answer to my question was that oil will not keep its shape with less of it, it will go flat. But water does keep its shape when some is taken away.

11. will the water stay on the coin if its size and texture is different

what i will think is going to happen is that nothing is going to happen i dont think it will change anything if the texture or size is different

my conclusion is that it doesnt matter what the shape or the texture of coin for the out come of the experiment

12. What will happen if you put vinegar at the bottom and water at the top?

The water will come right off the vinegar, and the vinegar will stay on the penny.

The conclusion I made was the water sits on top of the vinegar. I think this happened because the vinegar wasn't thick enough to move the water off of it. If we put vegtable oil or corn syrup (because they're thicker) the water might have come off one of them.

13. What will happen when we have vinegar on the penny, and then water ontop of that?

I predict that when we put the vinegar and the water on the penny, the two liquids will mix ontop of the penny and it wont wiggle as much as the just water would.

I conclude that when you put water and vinegar onto a penny at the same time, it does the same thing as it would with just water. The vinegar must not have anything in it that changes the interaction of the penny and the water.

14. do different bases effect the shape of the water?

that it will stay the same for all the shapes

the more sides a shape has, the more fitted the water is to that shape,and it hold more water with more sides too.

15. Does the water bead up, or not spread out on wax?

The water will react the same on the wax as on the penny.

Water on wax does do the same thing that water on a penny does.

16. What if instead of using I think that the oil would Our conclusion is that when

244

water we use vegi oil then we take away some of the oil n then add some food colouring to see the shape.

stay on the coin jus like the water.

u put oil on an regualar coin it stays, but when u take an i-droper and take some of the oil off it still keeps it shape,just degreasing the amount of oil on the coin.

17. What would happen if a different type of liquid was put on a different type of coin.

I think both corn syrup and water would stay on the nickle.

The vegetable oil stayed on the nickle and the water stayed on the nickle. I think it happens because the texture is making the liquids stay on the nickle. It's like traping liquids. But when the liquid got higher then the liquid just fell off the nickle.

245

Appendix D.22

Unit 3- L/I: Research questions, predictions and conclusions developed by each student

Research Question Prediction Conclusion

1. which molucles can hold to gether beter, vegtible oil or water while we are driving a tooth pick throug the liquads?

that the vegtible oil molucles will hold together better than the water molucles.

theat the water has more cohsion than the vegtible oil, i think this is because thatvegtible oil has more liguads in it than one. That would effect cohesion because the molucles must attract to a diffrent molucle.

2. Tip water onto a piece of wax paper and see if the water sperates or stayes in tack.

I think the glob of water will stay in tack.

Absent

3. what would happen if you mixed 2 liquids together to see if cohesian is created on a piece of wax paper

i predict that the oil will do the same thing that water does. it will come to geather when we move the wax paper around

my conclusion is that the oil did not make cohesion because it is thicker than water

4. if the water is at the tip of the beaker how many penneys does it take to overflow the beaker

think that the pennies will eventually overflow the beaker

really i figured out that water needs mor pennies to over flow

5. What is the result if we change the temp of the penny.

I predict that the frozen penny will hold more water because when cold is added moleuels decrease in size. The penny at room temp will hold thirty the penny with heat added to it will hold less water because molecuels expand when heat is added.

In conclusion I say that the cold makes molecuels decrease in size due to the cold penny holding more and the room and hot penny holding less. So cold obviosly decreases the size of the molcuels.

6. if you have one eyedropper filled with vegtable oil and another one filled with water, then squirt them on wax paper and try to move each with a toothpick, which will move around easier?

I predict that the vegtable oil will be harder to seperate and the cohesion will be stronger there.

The water's molecules werre packed tighter and the cohesion was stronger so it was harder to seperate.

7. The question we are going to ask is would

I predict that the excess liquids will be removed

Absent

246

putting two different liquids in an overflow can speed up or slow down the drip process?

faster.

8. If their is a cup of corn srup and a cup of water and the liquids are both over the top of the cup, how many pennies would it take until the liquids pour out of the cups?

That it takes more pennies to make the cup of vegtable oil pour out of the cup than the cup of water.

The cup of water took 11 pennies to overflow the cup, and the cup of vegtable oil took one pennie to overflow the cup.

9. will the 2 diffrent liquid stick together on the wax paper?

i think they wont stick toether because they are diffrent liqud.

the water and oil does not stick together on wax paper.

10. Is cohesion effected by different liquids on wax paper?

I think the vegetable oil beads will come together slower that the beads of water because vegetable oil is thicker and more dence than water.

My prediction for the outcome of this experement was that the vegetable oil would move together slower than the water. I was right. The vegetable oil hardly moved on this sheet of paper. I think the outcome happened this way because the vegetable oil is much thicker than the water, so it didn't move

11. Would putting two different liquids in the overflow can make the drip process go faster or slower?

I predict that the mixture of vegetable oil and water will drip faster than just water

the pure water drips faster than the mxture of water and vegetable oil. I think this is because the vegetable oil mixes with the water and makes it thicker, which makes it drip more slowly.

12. what happens if you get two pieces of paper and you get on big bead of water and them you pass the big bead of water on to the second peice of paper then see what happens

I think that when i roll the water beads onto the paper the beads will splash all over into millions of little beads.

My conclusion is when you drop the water beads on plastic the water molecules come closer together and make a big bead. My guess was wrong.

13. What would happen if you mixed 2 liquids together to see if cohesian is created on a piece of wax paper?

I predict that we will not find cohesian because vegtable oil is thick. Water is very light.

My conclusion is that vegtable oil is thicker than water and it does not make cohesion like water does.

14. You have one eye dropper filled with water,

I predict that the vegtable oil's molecules will stay

The water's moelcules are more packed together than

247

and another one filled with vegtable oil. You squirt some out, and out a toothpick through it. What liquid's molecules stay together?

together, and that the water molecules will break apart or be easier to break apart.

the vegtable oils, and so there is more cohesion in the water molecules.

248

Appendix D.23

Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 2 POE students

Research Variables

1. What happens if you change the temperature of the water?

Temperature of liquid

2. What if you used different liquids? Type of liquid used

3. What would happen if you used different amounts of water?

Volume of water

4. What if you moved the beaker from inverted to upright?

Position of beaker

5. What if you used a different container than a beaker?

Container other than beaker

6. What if the inverted beaker had a hole in it?

7. What if you used an overflow can in place of the inverted beaker?

8. What if the inverted beaker was upright with a cover that was taken off?

9. What if you used different sized beakers? Size of beaker

10. What would happen if you put the inverted beaker in place, then added water?

Method of adding water

11. Would the same thing happen if you did not use a weight on the beaker?

Not using weight

12. What if you put a different object in the inverted beaker?

Different objects in inverted beaker

13. What would happen with different kinds of paper?

249

Appendix D.24 Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 2 NOE students

Research Question Variable

1. What if you changed the amount of the water?

Volume of liquid

2. What if you used a liquid other than water?

Type of liquid used

3. What if you used salt water?

4. What if you changed the temperature of the water?

Temperature of liquid

5. What if there were two beakers? Number of beakers

6. What if the inverted beaker had a different shape?

Shape of beaker

7. What if you used a beaker without a spout?

8. What if you used a different sized beaker?

Size of beaker

9. What if the inverted beaker was actually upright with a weight on top?

Position of beaker

10. What if you used a lighter weight on top of the beaker?

Different mass of weight

11. What if you used a heavier weight on top of the beaker?

12. Would the same thing happen if there was no weight on top?

No weight used

13. What if you don’t use a weight on top of the inverted beaker?

14. What if you used a different object in the inverted beaker?

Different objects in inverted beaker

15. What would happen if you used a balloon in the inverted beaker?

16. Would it react differently if you left it in place overnight?

Time that experiment is run

17. What if you had different gases in the inverted beaker?

Different gas used

250

Appendix D.25 Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 2 L/I students

Research Question Variable

1. What would happen if you filled a balloon with air and food coloring, then popped it underwater?

Balloon filled with various substances underwater

2. What would happen if you put a balloon full of air and another full of water underwater and popped them?

3. What would happen if you put corn syrup in a balloon and popped it underwater?

4. What would happen if you had a balloon tied, with air in it, and a small hole the size of a pencil point and put it underwater?

5. What happens if you put paper towel into a cup and put it underwater upside down?

Inverted beaker underwater

6. What would happen if you put a screen over a beaker and put it in water [upright]- would water go in?

Screen on inverted beaker underwater

7. If you put a rubber ball with a hole in it underwater, how fast does the gas come out of the ball and the water go in?

Rubber ball with hole underwater

251

Appendix D.26 Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 3 POE students

Research Question Variable

1. What if you used different liquids? Type of liquid used

2. What if you used a thick liquid?

3. What if the water was a different temperature?

Temperature of liquid

4. What would happen to the shape of the bubble if you took water away with the eyedropper?

Removing liquid with eyedropper

5. What if you used a different way to put the liquid on instead of an eyedropper?

Adding water with something other than eyedropper

6. What if you changed the angle of the eyedropper as you hold it?

Angle of eyedropper

7. What if you changed the rate of dropping the water from the eyedropper?

Rate of dropping liquid from eyedropper

8. What if you used a different sized coin? Size of coin

9. What if you used a jumbo coin [very large coin from Magic Club]?

10. What if you used different coins? Different types of coin

11. Would there be a difference if you used heads or tails of the coin?

Different side of coin

12. What if the coin was hot or cold? Temperature of coin

13. What if you used a clean or dirty penny?

Clean or dirty coin

14. Would the year of the coin affect the results?

Year of coin

15. What if you had a coin with a hole in it? Coin with hole

16. What if the coin had a different surface or texture?

Surface or texture of coin

17. What would happen if you used an object instead of a penny that absorbed water?

Object other than penny

18. What would happen if you poked the bubble?

Surface of bubble touched

19. What if the coin was on a different base?

Coin on different base

252

Appendix D.27 Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 3 NOE students

Research Question Variable 1. What if you used different liquids? Type of liquid used

2. What if you used a mixture of liquids?

3. How many drops could fit on the penny? Number of drops on penny

4. Would a change in water temperature affect the results?

Temperature of liquid

5. What if the coin was a different size? Size of coin

6. What if you used a jumbo coin [very large coin from Magic Club]?

7. What if you used different coins? Different types of coins

8. Would there be a difference if you used heads or tails?

Different side of coin

9. What if the coin had a different shape? Shape of coin

10. What if the coin was hot or cold? Temperature of coin

11. What if the coin had a different surface or texture?

Surface or texture of coin

12. What if the coin had an “indent or outdent”?

13. Would the same thing happen without the coin?

No coin used

14. What happens if you poked the bubble? Surface of bubble touched

15. What if the coin was on a different base?

Coin on different base

16. What if you put water on a dollar bill? Liquid dropped on something other than coin

17. What would happen on wax paper?

253

Appendix D.28 Complete list of research questions and variables developed by Unit 3 L/I students

Research Question Variable 1. Do different types of liquids “make cohesion”?

Type of liquid used

2. Does temperature affect the cohesion of water?

Temperature of liquid

3. Which would drip faster: corn syrup or vegetable oil in an overflow can or a faucet turned on low?

Rate of drip from Overflow Can

4. Would putting two different liquids in an overflow can speed up or slow down the drip process?

5. How long can water stay at the bottom of the spout of an overflow can compared to other liquids?

6. Which different liquids drip faster from an overflow can?

7. If you put an object in an overflow can, would more drops come out than if there was no object placed in?

8 Will corn syrup go higher than water when filling a beaker?

Different liquids filled to beaker rim

9 Will corn syrup go higher than water in a beaker at the breaking point?

10. How much water could you put on the bottom of an upside down beaker before the water flows over the edge?

Different base other than coin

11. How many quarters would it take to add to a beaker of water before it overflows?

Number of quarters to filled beaker

12. Which liquid could you put more coins into before it overflows over the beaker: corn syrup or water?

Different liquids with coins added

13. Does corn syrup drip like water? Comparing drip of various liquids 14. Would different liquids come together when you put them on wax paper and shake slightly?

Combining liquids

15. Would water and vegetable oil stay together if you put a toothpick through it?

Surface of bubble touched

16. How much water can a penny hold before the water falls off the penny?

Number of drops on coin

17. What would happen if you put water on different size coins?

Different size of coins