1. Saima Naureen and Kay Jeffrey Ed. 7202T Spring 2011 Prof. O’Connor-Petruso

2.  Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis  Method -Participants/Procedure -Instruments -Experimental Design -Threats to Validity  Results  Discussion  Implications  References

3.  The scientific approach to solving everyday problems need to be encouraged and developed in a formal educational setting… (Poon, Tan & Tan 2009).  The inquiry method of teaching which involves discovery, embraces this principle.  Direct instruction as practiced by Private School X, facilitates the teachers’ general dissemination of information.  Merging both methods should be beneficial to the students.

4.  Private school X, located in New York City urban area, has been implementing the direct instruction method of teaching science for years without significant student improvement.  Merging an inquiry-based curriculum with the direct instruction strategy should help to improve the student’s performance and foster an independent learning style.

5. Skinner Dewey  PROS:  Investigative activities  Natural activity and curiosity  Psychological needs of the child (Smart & Csapo, 2007; Eshach, 1997; Lawson & Renner, 1975; Vondervoort, 1983; Piaget; Dewey, 2008)  CONS:  Teacher/student interactional difficulties  Socially demanding  Limited adult support  Unnecessary rediscovery (Bencze, Oliveria, 2009; Robertson, 2007; Beliavsky, 2006; skinner,1987)

6. CONS:  Facts through rote memorization – forgetable  Under developed process skills  Knowledge of Scientific principles required  (Wang & Wen, 2010; Vandervoort, 1983; chiapetta & collette, 1973; Ray, 1961) PROS:  Structured/assessed  with validity  Planned experiences  More student guidance  Best for content and  new skills (Qablan, Bencze, 2009; Robertson, 2007; Lee, 2002; Mason,1963; Skinner,1987)

7.  Over a six week period, fifteen kindergarten students in a private school X in NYC will receive three different instructional approaches (direct instruction, inquiry- based, and both methods), three times per week for thirty minutes intervals on plant life, and the group receiving both methods will yield the highest results as measured by the Science Post-test.

8.  Participants  15 children (8 boys, 7 girls) in kindergarten divided in three groups.  5 children in group one- direct instruction method.  5 children in group two- inquiry- based method.  5 children in group three- inquiry and direct instruction.  Procedure  February 2011 Consent Forms were distributed. Students Surveys were given to three groups.  March 2011 Pre-test was given to three groups.  March 2011- April 2011 Intervention of six weeks was given to three groups.  April 2011 Post-test was given to three groups.

9.  Instruments  Parent Consent Form  Principal Consent Form  Student Survey  Pre-test  Post-test

10.  Experimental Design  Quasi-Experimental Design: Nonequivalent Control Group Design ◦ Three groups are pre-tested ◦ one control group ◦ Two groups exposed to a treatment ◦ Three groups are post-tested Symbolic Design: OX ₁ O OX ₂ O OXзO

11.  Internal Threats  History  Maturation  Mortality  Statistical Regression  Differential Selection of Subjects  Selection-Maturation Interaction  External Threats  Generalizable Conditions  Pretest Treatment  Selection Treatment Interaction  Experimenter Effects

12. AVEMAXMINRANGE Group 1 56704030 Group 2 62907020 Group 3 66907020 AVEMAXMINRANGE Group 1 52803050 Group 2 701007030 Group 3 76908010 PRE-TEST POST-TEST

13. 0.77 rxy shows that there is a fair correlation between students’ planting the seed and achievement in science. How many time have you planted a seed? Never (1)one to two times (2)more than two times (3)frequently (4)

14. STUD ENTS PRE- TEST POST - TEST % +/- A 7810% D 550% G 65-10% N 65 O 43 B 91010% F 56 H 4620% J 660% K 77 C 99 E 8910% I 45 L 5720% M 7810% Group 3 Group 2 Group 1

15.  This action research – guided by these theorists (Ericson, Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, Thorndyke, Skinner and Gardner)  Both methods receive favorable reviews.  Inquiry method -Advocates of the child centered curriculum.  Positive results from use of both methods.  Action research can be duplicated in a similar setting with possible similar results.

16.  Both inquiry method and direct instruction used together worked favorably.  Need for a larger class size.  Separate class rooms should be used for each group.  Further research is needed to validate findings.

17. References Al-Sabbagh, S. (2009). Instruments and implements of enquiry based learning. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED507027&site=ehost-live Bangert-Drowns, R., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Retrieved from ERIC. Accession Number: ED328614. http://www.eric.ed.gov.ez- proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED328614.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov.ez- proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED328614.pdf Beliavsky, N. (2006). Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: Realizing human potential. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40 (2), 1-11. Retrieved from JSTOR. Bencze, J. (2009). ‘‘Polite directiveness’’ in science inquiry: A contradiction in terms? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 855-864. DOI 10.1007/s11422-009-9194-5 Chiapetta, E. L. & Collette, A. T. (1973). Process versus content in elementary science teaching. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=113&sid=d94660d3-c320-48ca-8b62- 8ca6697c1c37%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED099196http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=113&sid=d94660d3-c320-48ca-8b62- 8ca6697c1c37%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=ED099196 Dewey, J. (2008). Democracy and education. Virginia: Wilder Publications. Eshach, H. (1997). Inquiry-events as a tool for changing science teaching efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 495-501. Retrieved from JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188754http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188754 Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30 (4), 3-14. Retrieved from JSTOR. Henderson, T., & David, A. (2007). Integration of play, learning, and experience: What museums afford young visitors. Early Childhood Education journal, 35 (3), 245-251. DOI 10.1007/s10643-007-0208-1

18. References Hohloch, J. M., Grove, N., & Bretz, S. L. (2007). Pre-service teacher as researcher: The value of inquiry in learning science. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (9), 1530-1534. (EJ820789). Retrieved from http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/Journal/Issues/2007/Sep/abs1530.html Lawson, A., & Renner, J. (1975). Piagetian theory and biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 37 (6), 336-343. Lee, O. (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Review of Research in Education, 26, 23-69. Marshall, J. A., & Dorward, J. T. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students. American Association of Physics Teachers, 68. Retrieved from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=E7VEHHT4H1RP07MNC39C.http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=E7VEHHT4H1RP07MNC39C Mason, J. (1963). The direct teaching of critical thinking in grades four through six. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1 (4). Retrieved from ERIC. http://www.eric.ed.gov.ez- proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED011239.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov.ez- proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/PDFS/ED011239.pdf Oliveria, A. W. (2009). ‘‘Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?’’ politeness and teacher directive choices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cultural study of science education, 4, 803-846. DOI 10.1007/s11422-009-9193-6. Poon, C., Tan, D., & Tan, A. (2009). Classroom management and inquiry-based learning: Finding the balance. Science Scope, 32 (9), 18-21. (EJ850038). Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez- proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_ common.jhtml.43

19. References Qablan, A., Al-Ruz, J., Theodora, D., & Al-Momani, I. (2009). "I know it's so good, but I prefer not to use it." An interpretive investigation of Jordanian preservice elementary teachers' perspectives about learning biology through Inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 394-404. (EJ869324). Retrieved from ERIC database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ869324&site=ehost-live Ray, W. (1961). Pupil discovery vs. direct instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 29 (3), 271-280. Retrieved from JSTOR. Robertson, B. (2007). Getting past “inquiry versus content”. Educational Leadership, 64 (4), 67-70. (EJ766308). Retrieved from ERIC. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Teaching science in high school- What is wrong. Paper presented at the AAA meeting. Smart, K., & Csapo, N. (Dec. 2007). Learning by doing: engaging students through learner-centered activities. Business Communication Quarterly, 451-457. Retrieved from ERIC. Soltis, F. (1988). Dewey and Thorndike: The persistence of paradigms in educational scholarship. Canadian Journal of Education, 13 (1), 39-51. Retrieved from JSTOR. Vandervoort, F. S. (1983). What would John Dewey say about science teaching today? The American Biology Teacher, 45 (1), 38-41. Retrieved from JSTOR. Wang, J., & Wen, S. (2010). Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methods students’ conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 1-21. Retrieved from EBSCO. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F6CBAE4E3BBD1F0DC2Ahttp://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4F6CBAE4E3BBD1F0DC2A Wrenn, J., & Wrenn, B. (2009). Enhancing learning by integrating theory and practice. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (2), 258-265. Retrieved from ERIC.