Putting inquiry-based learning into practice: How teachers changed their beliefs and attitudes through a professional development program

Introduction

When examining research articles on the subject of inquiry-based learning (IBL), the following picture emerges time and again: IBL is regarded as an indispensable element of science education and fostering its implementation is substance of various reform efforts. Despite that, there has been only a slight impact on science teachers’ practice so far (e.g. Capps, Shemwell, & Young, 2016; Crawford, 2014; DiBiase & McDonald, 2015). Even though science teachers consider IBL as an important instructional approach, they implement it only infrequently or occasionally in their own classes. As reasons for this, they prevalently name external factors like lacking resources, unsuitable organizational conditions as well as the inconsistency with curricula, standards and final exams (Anderson, 2002; DiBiase & McDonald, 2015; Hofer, Abels, & Lembens, 2018). Research findings, however, suggest that especially internal factors like beliefs and attitudes affect whether teachers implement IBL or not (e.g. Jones & Carter, 2007). Hence, professional development programs (PDP) need to particularly address these internal factors in order to persuade teachers to apply IBL. This study investigates the impact of a collaboratively designed PDP on the participating teachers’ beliefs and attitudes as well as on their willingness to implement IBL in their own chemistry classes.

Theoretical framework

According to Jones and Carter (2007), teachers’ beliefs and attitudes “shape the way they interpret and respond to changes and challenges”. Consequently, beliefs and attitudes crucially influence what instructional strategies teachers choose and how they implement these strategies in the classroom. In the following sections, we briefly discuss how beliefs and attitudes influence classroom practice, what beliefs and attitudes teachers hold regarding IBL and what features are characteristic for effective PDP.

Beliefs and attitudes as antecedents for instructional practice

Investigating teachers’ beliefs and attitudes has become a more prominent issue in educational research over the decades. However, the large number of studies has entailed an equally large number of terms in this context. Beliefs, attitudes, views, conceptions, values, perceptions – just to name a few – are terms used to describe aspects concerning a teacher’s personal disposition. Unfortunately, these terms are neither defined uniformly nor are they used consistently (cf. Jones & Leagon, 2014; Jones & Carter, 2007). For this reason, we want to briefly clarify the terms we will use hereafter. By attitude, we understand “a predisposition to respond positively or negatively to things, people, places, events, or ideas” (Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, & Crawley, 1996, p. 212). This describes a “state internal to the person” (Eagly, 1992, p. 694) which determines “how favorable or unfavorable an individual feels about performing a behavior” (Jaccard, Litardo, & Wan, 1999, p. 103). In the context of teaching, an attitude can be considered as a kind of willingness (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Jaccard et al., 1999) to apply a specific teaching content, material, method, curriculum, instructional strategy or approach and, hence, is antecedent to classroom practice (Ajzen, 2001; van Aalderen-Smeets, Walma van der Molen, & Asma, 2012). Using the term beliefs, we talk about cognitive constructs, which are not factual or scientifically justified and, thus, differ from a teachers’ knowledge. Teachers may hold diverse beliefs about various facets of teaching and learning, knowledge and science as well as about their self-efficacy (Jones & Leagon, 2014; Jones & Carter, 2007).

Studying three models from literature (Jones & Carter, 2007, p. 1076; Jones & Carter, 2007, p. 842; van Aalderen-Smeets et al., 2012, p. 176), we strive for providing a strongly simplified model which focuses merely on a few basic elements, but still indicates the relationship between a teacher’s attitude (in the meaning we stated above) and their classroom practice (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

A strongly simplified model of the relationship between attitude, intentions and practice.

As illustrated above, an attitude emerges from three basic elements (knowledge and skills, beliefs and affective factors) which mutually interact with each other. These three elements may include both conscious and unconscious aspects and are strongly interlinked with the prevailing sociocultural context. The complex interaction between these elements results in an attitude which determines the intentions (plans, prospects, resolutions) a teacher has. These intentions may result in practice (implementation in the classroom) and, if so, in an experience which in turn influences the teacher’s knowledge and skills, beliefs as well as the affective factors. Although we started our description at one specific point, it is important to recognize that this model illustrates a cyclical and dynamic process which may differ vastly depending on person and context.

The context of the study

The starting point of this study was a PDP in the framework of the FP7-project TEMI.^[1] This PDP consisted of workshop-series extending over a period of 4 months each and aimed at fostering the implementation of IBL in secondary science classes. For this purpose, the participating teachers were introduced to a theoretical framework comprising the definition of IBL according to the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 2000), the instructional goals formulated by Abrams, Southerland, and Evans (2008), the different levels of IBL (Blanchard et al., 2010) as well as the 5E instructional model (Bybee, 2009). Additionally, the teachers engaged in IBL from the perspective of both learners and teachers. In doing so, they explored various scientific phenomena, attempted to plan IBL units and reflected on their experiences and implications for their own teaching. The data collected over the whole period of the PDP indicated that the participating teachers really liked TEMI; they did not, however, transfer these contents and strategies to their own science classes. They stated that they would not feel confident enough to implement IBL without further help. Furthermore, the results suggested several inconsistencies present in the teachers’ conceptions of IBL (cf. Hofer, Lembens, & Abels, 2016; Lembens & Abels, 2016).

In order to examine the teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL in more detail, we conducted a group discussion (N = 5, ∼45 min) with former TEMI participants. The data from this discussion (Hofer et al., 2018) showed that the teachers still had great difficulty to conceptualize IBL as an instructional approach. They reduced IBL to a specific instructional method (cf. Reiff, 2002; Rushton et al., 2011), which can be used to pursue goals beyond those of regular lessons. Whilst the teachers described IBL as an important and valuable approach, they considered its implementation as almost unrealizable under the prevailing conditions (cf. Crawford, 2014; Wallace & Kang, 2004). Once again, they emphasized their own insufficient knowledge and skills in order to plan and implement IBL by themselves. These results implied that even though the participating teachers already held a positive attitude toward IBL, nonetheless, they refrained from implementing it in their own science classes (cf. DiBiase & McDonald, 2015).

Purpose of the study

Considering these findings, we decided to design a further PDP focusing on the realization of IBL units in the participating teachers’ own classes. In the framework of this PDP, a regular and intensive collaboration should be established in order to accompany the teachers in planning and implementing IBL units as well as in reflecting on their experiences. By providing Extended Support, the teachers should be able to cope with the barriers they perceive when implementing IBL and, as a result, they should be more willing to implement IBL in their future classes.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this PDP the following questions were formulated:

1. How did the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL change over the period of the PDP?

2. What intentions do the teachers have regarding the implementation of IBL in their own classes after participating in the PDP?

Design and method

Analyzing the findings from the group discussion, we discovered a number of different beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL. To change them in a way that teachers would be more willing to implement IBL after participating in the PDP, we selected three of the major concerns to be focused on in the PDP. As a next step, we reflected about how these concerns could be addressed in the planned PDP (see Table 1).

Considering the selected concerns as well as the common features of effective PDP (Capps et al., 2012), we specified the general procedure we aimed for the PDP: The PDP should expand over a period of about 9 months (Total Time) and the units designed in the course of the PDP will deal with prominent content aspects of the curriculum (Coherency). To ensure compatibility with the teachers’ beliefs and daily practice, we agreed to implement IBL units at Level 1 (structured IBL; Blanchard et al., 2010), based on investigations and experimental material the teachers already use in their lessons. In general, the PDP was supposed to engage teachers to design units and material and to apply this in their own lessons (Developed Lessons, Transference). The PDP should provide sufficient opportunities to introduce and pursue the teachers’ own ideas and interests. Moreover, the teachers should have the possibility to discuss arising questions concerning both content (Content Knowledge) and methodical issues and to exchange experiences from classroom practice (Reflection). The theoretical framework for IBL was partly adopted from TEMI (characteristic features, instructional goals, levels, 5E model) and supplemented by basic ideas of scaffolding (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; Quintana et al., 2004).

After having defined the structure and aims of the planned PDP, we determined to conduct an explorative case study in cooperation with three teachers. To align the planned PDP with their demands and expectations, we organized a preliminary meeting. In this meeting, we specified the timeframe, the participating classes and the structure of the PDP. As illustrated in Figure 2, the PDP included three IBL units which were planned and prepared jointly but implemented individually by each teacher, starting in March 2017. Each unit was followed by a meeting where the teachers exchanged their experiences, reflected on the implementation and specified their plans for the upcoming unit.

Figure 2:

Research design.

Methods of data collection and analysis

Since the literature considers interviews to be an appropriate method for capturing teachers’ beliefs and attitudes (e.g. Herrington et al., 2016; Lakin & Wallace, 2015; Luft & Roehrig, 2007), we decided to conduct a semi-structured interview (∼60 min) with each of the participants at the end of the PDP (see Figure 2). In this way, we pursued two goals: firstly, we wanted to enable the teachers to describe and explain their statements and secondly, we wanted to have the possibility to request and stimulate the conversation by introducing guiding questions. In order to decrease the teachers’ perception of being obligated to answer in a socially desired manner, the interviews were carried out by a researcher not involved in the PDP. To determine whether and how far the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes changed over the period of the PDP, we contrasted the results from the final interviews with those from the group discussion prior to the PDP (see Figure 2).

In order to analyze the data, both the group discussion and the final interviews were fully transcribed. These transcripts were analyzed applying a qualitative content analysis following Kuckartz (2014). Considering the initial findings from the group discussion (see above) and reviewing relevant literature resulted in a couple of questions (see Figure 3, Appendix). These questions served as the basis to develop a tripartite coding scheme considering the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL as well as their intentions regarding its implementation (see Table 3).

Figure 3:

Development of the tripartite coding scheme from the emerging questions.

Table 3:

The tripartite coding scheme.

Part 1: beliefs	Part 2: attitude	Part 3: intentions
Efficacy of IBL	General attitude toward IBL	General willingness to implement
Capability of IBL	Affective disposition	Intentions for implementation
Practicability of IBL	Effort vs. outcome	Already realized implementation

According to this scheme we developed a coding manual which was applied deductively to both the group discussion and the final interviews. Even though we coded all statements of the group discussion (N = 5), the further analysis referred only to the statements of the teachers who participated in the final interview (N = 3). Due to the complexity of the transcripts (simultaneous talking, referring to others’ statements as well as to situations in class) we decided to use the method of peer debriefing (Creswell & Miller, 2000) for validating the analysis. Both the coding scheme and the analysis process were reviewed by at least three researchers external to the study.

Results

The results of the qualitative content analysis are presented following the structure of the coding scheme. Relating to the three parts (Beliefs, Attitude, Intentions) one after another, we contrast the results of the group discussion with those of the final interviews.

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed three chemistry teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL and, based on this, we developed a PDP following the “common features of effective PDP” by Capps et al. (2012). As the results show, this approach has proven successful and the teachers positively changed their beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL as well as their intentions regarding its implementation. It became apparent that the influence of a teachers’ attitude on their intentions and practice is dynamic and cyclical and involving teachers immediately in implementing IBL in their own classes (practice) may be effective to subsequently change their attitude, intentions and practice.

After the PDP, the teachers did not longer consider IBL as a contradiction to secondary chemistry education, but as an important and valuable instructional approach. They assumed IBL to be an effortful but worthwhile instructional approach and stated to continue the implementation of IBL in their own classes. Contrasting the results from the group discussion and the final interviews showed that participating in the PDP decreased the teachers’ uncertainty regarding the implementation (capability and practicability) of IBL as well as their concerns regarding its efficacy. The “importance of seeing students learn through inquiry experiences” (p. 268) is also one main finding of the study by Lotter et al. (2016). Experiencing ways to deal with their students’ knowledge and skills as well as with the prevailing conditions made the teachers talking rather about challenges than about obstacles when implementing IBL.

Miranda and Damico (2015) conducted a study in which science teachers engaged in research projects (Authentic Experience) and participated in a one-year professional learning community thereafter. The PDP was similar regarding several features of effective PDP (Capps et al., 2012) and the authors state that the participants were able to positively change their beliefs. However, the changes in their practice were rather meager. When discussing the results, Miranda and Damico (2015) suggest to guide and support teachers in the course of PDP, especially when planning IBL units for higher level science courses. This is possibly one of the main reasons why the participants in this study did not only change their beliefs and attitudes, but also their intentions and practice. Capps et al. (2012) identify a lack of studies focusing on the features Develop Lessons and Transference as well. Moreover, the opportunities for exchanging, discussing and reflecting with colleagues seems to be another crucial factor for the success of PDP regarding IBL (cf. Lebak, 2015; Lotter et al., 2016; Wong & Luft, 2015). Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) illustrate the complex interaction between enactment and reflection in their interconnected model of professional growth and emphasize the importance of collaborative groupwork in this context.

Despite these positive developments we identified some obstructive beliefs that are persistent in the teachers’ minds: The teachers consider only the content-related aspects of the curriculum – skills and competencies still play a minor role. Because of this perception, the teachers identified the rigor of the curriculum as one of the major obstacles for implementing IBL regularly into their chemistry classes (cf. Miranda & Damico, 2015; Lebak, 2015). Moreover, the model of the all-knowing teacher was prominently represented in the teachers’ minds. One factor they considered as challenging when implementing IBL was being prepared for various questions emerging over the course of an IBL unit.

In the final interviews, the teachers mentioned that they had no opportunities to gain experience with IBL or inquiry in their studies (with the exception of the research project in the PhD study of Teacher C). This is consistent with the findings of Wong and Luft (2015) and the claim of Herrington, Yezierski, Luxford, and Luxford (2011), in which they state that “yet most high school chemistry teachers did not learn science through investigation, but rather by sitting in lectures and participating in ‘cookbook’ laboratory experiences”. Thus, it is hardly surprising that teachers refrain from implementing IBL. As Teacher B stated, it requires courage to apply an instructional approach that is totally unfamiliar to both the students and the teacher.

Like for every instructional strategy, the ability to deal with IBL depends on the teachers’ individual knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes and experiences. The results of this study indicate that Teacher A, who has no degree in education or chemistry, faced many more challenges than the others. Particularly the lack of pedagogical skills (lesson planning, classroom management etc.) seems to have a large impact on the attitude, intentions and practice regarding IBL. Additionally, Lotter et al. (2016) highlight the impact of the teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for implementing IBL. This also appears in the statements of Teacher A and Teacher B who both confessed that they feel uncomfortable when imagining situations in which they themselves do not know the correct procedure or answer.

Due to the design of this study, the findings of this article have to be seen as explorative. Firstly, the participating teachers can be regarded as especially committed and enthusiastic. Secondly, they dealt only with commonly developed IBL units at lower levels. It ought to be examined how greatly the PDP influences the teachers’ daily practice or if they just keep applying the already developed units. However, as Herrington et al. (2011) state: “for a teacher who does not use any inquiry activities in their classroom, including two new activities should be considered an advance”. Additionally, it remains open to what extent the specific design of the PDP influenced the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes.

Conclusion

This article aims to show how far a collaboratively designed PDP changed the participating teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL and its implementation in their own chemistry classes. After participating in the PDP, the teachers had a much more differentiated view of IBL. Instead of stating whether or not IBL is an effective, capable or practical instructional approach, they explicitly named aspects which facilitate or complicate and promote or inhibit the implementation of IBL, as well as strengthen or weaken its efficacy. The results show that supporting teachers in planning, implementing and reflecting upon IBL units enables them to become familiar with both the processes of inquiry and the implementation of IBL as an instructional approach. Moreover, the findings underline the importance of PDP, which support the teachers when they gain experience in their own classes and under the conditions prevailing at their schools. Contrasting the present findings with data from other studies shows that the features Develop Lessons, Transference and Reflection (in peer groups) seem to be especially beneficial for changing teachers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding IBL positively and, perhaps, they even outrank the features Authentic Experience and Total Time. In a next step, we strive for examining the impact of this PDP on the participating teachers’ knowledge and skills through analyzing the audio and video data from the implemented IBL units.